06 World Open Concludes

Comments

Finegold drew against the Shogi player.
Posted by: Zakki at July 4, 2006 06:43

I hope that Goichberg will in the future be able to keep his web site up to date for the open section.

Monroi did not carry the round 6 game for Milov or for Kamsky. they did have the battle for round 7.

It is a new day and the final day and we do not have the results posted for the open section and the games have started for round 8.

But it is much better than in the past. If Goichberg wants this to be a World Class Tournament then he must post results as the tournament progresses at least in the open class and at minimum before the games start on the final day.

I hope Bill is doing a better job of running the USCF than his own biggest tournament. well he has only had 33 practice runs of this for the 34th World Open. maybe he needed 34 practice runs.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 10:08

Well Ben Finegold has some results posted. Thanks Ben you win the gold star for today. Mig missed. he listed only 2 people at first place and there are 3. he also neglected to post any other names. my my. Mig wins only the silver star today.

here is Ben Finegolds posting on his blog.

Here are standings after 7 rounds:

1-3 Kamsky, Milov, Benjamin 6-1
4-16 Chanda, Nakamura, Yudasin, Stocek, Bo Hansen, Wojtkiewicz, Akobian, Kachieshvili, Ganguly, Browne, Yusupov, Ehlvest, Vescovi 5.5-1.5
17-31 Stripunsky, Moissenko, Izoria, Perelshteyn, Fishbein, Sharavdorj, Ibragimov, Shabalov, A. Ivanov, Cordova, Friedel, Becerra, Fedorowicz, Gulamali, Varshavsky 5-2
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 10:13

So what is the deal with this Eugene Varshavsky fellow in the Open section. After seven rounds, he has 5.0/7 having defeated three FMs (two have 3 IM norms) and last night he beat GM Smirin. This guy is rated 2169 USCF and hasn't done anything spectacular except win the expert section in 2005 Foxwoods.

What especially troubles me is that the alleged moves of the Smirin-Varshavsky game match Fritz 9 extremely well. In fact, it is a perfect match for long stretches, including the final 25 moves. Is this guy cheating or just darn good!?

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 4, 2006 14:10

The monroi site is not responding. Does anyone know about the Kamsk game
Posted by: jojo at July 4, 2006 14:14

Smirin-Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2 Qxd4 34. Nxd4 Be4 35. g3 Re8 36. Rc1 g5 37. f5 Rxe5 38. gxh4 gxh4 39. Re2 Ree7 40. Rf2 Rc7 41. Rcf1 Rf6 42. Rf4 Rg7 43. R1f2 Kf7 44. Rxh4 Ke7 45. Rg4 Rgf7 46. Kg3 Bxf5 47. Rgf4 Bd7 48. Re2+ Kd6 49. Rh4 Rg7+ 50. Kh2 Rg5 51. Rd2 h5 52. Re2 Rf1 53. Rd2 Be8 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ 55. Kxg2 Rd1 56. Kf2 Rd3 57.
Ke2 Bg6 1-0
Posted by: fpawn at July 4, 2006 14:14

Shouldn't that be 0-1, fpawn?
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at July 4, 2006 14:34

Watching the games on ICC today, LarryC related a tory about Varshevsky. Said that after the Smirin game, he wouldn't engage in postmortemn. Then during the morning round today, he was asked to talk to Goich and then immediately retired to the rest room for some 45 mins. Once they got him, out, they searched him, found nothing, and went back to his game. He apparently then quickly lost.

Cheater? Maybe, but one could argue that being rousted in the middle of your game could lead to blunders.
Posted by: Dondo at July 4, 2006 15:22

First prize ought to be between $33K and $35K (assuming a solo winner). Not sure what it will be exactly.
Posted by: Daniel at July 4, 2006 15:23

I read something curious on USCF's website:

"A notable absence in the tournament [World Open] is U.S. Champion Alexander Onischuk, who even came to the tournament on Friday with his wife, Olga. At the last moment, he decided not to play, because he didn't want to carry a chess board and pieces to the game each round. He also wanted to relax and explore the great city of Philadelphia. In the interests of fostering chess professionalism, he suggests providing boards and clocks for the top ten boards in major Opens.(In Europe boards and clocks are usually provided for all players.) Or, if that doesn't work out, any chess caddies avaliable?"

It's probably good that Onischuk did not go, to let others have a chance at the money. But if that's not the reason he didn't play, then I just can't help but feel that a board and clock would be provided for him. Then again I don't know what chess tournaments are like.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 4, 2006 16:08

results of Eugene Varshavsky are rather surprising. I played him at the National Open and he put up no resistance at all. I thought he was a "floor" master. But stranger things have happened. Even an idiot like me had a good World Open once upon a time.
Posted by: fluffy at July 4, 2006 17:54

Round 8 the Kamsky game was a draw. round 9 he took a fast draw. leaving the way open for Milov or Benjamin to win their last round game and take first place.

Goichberg's web site is way out of date. rediculous. Game 9 some people are finished and they are sitting with game 5 results 2 days old.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 18:52

I am forced to past results together.

Kacheishvili and Yudasin also were tied going into round 9 with Kamsky, Milov and benjamin.

so far both Kamsky and Yudasin have taken draws so end with 7.0 points.

that leaves
Milov, Benjamin, and Kacheishvili in postion to take first place with a win. with the big prize money I expect them to fight for a win.

There were many people with 6 points going into the final round who with a win would tie with Kamsky at 7 points.

there was a big field of GM's this year.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 18:59

Thanks for the star, tommy, but you can't count so no stars for you. I gave all three leaders.
Posted by: Mig at July 4, 2006 23:10

I have been told Varshavsky was removed from the tournament for cheating. Apparently it is a huge story there in Philly. No details, though.
Posted by: John Fernandez at July 4, 2006 23:12

I was one of Eugene Varshavsky's victims at this year's National Open. On the White side of a Najdorf, he played 6.Be3, 7.f3, but then Be2 and O-O. Eager to "punish" him, I over-extended on the Queenside and he squashed me like a bug. I am a weak master (USCF 2320). There was nothing in the game to suggest anything suspicious (you could argue there was no need considering how the game went).

His 2200 "floor" (he's still a USCF expert) was due to his earlier winning the Expert section of Foxwoods. He has been forced to play in Open secitons, with lackluster results, but he seemed happy with how the National Open went (not overly impressive, but indicating to him he could play in such sections). A little confidence can certainly help one's play.

I enjoyed watching his 5th round World Open game (Monroi) against Bartholomew (about 2400): Varshavsky dropped a pawn in the opening, played rather natural moves (maybe Fritz agrees, but my guess is such moves would be played by most players), and Bartholomew tangled up his pieces.

In the Smirnin game, maybe Smirnin overlooked ...g5 - which you don't necessarily need a computer to find, but a non-obvious move. Even after that, I wonder if Smirnin's play was the best (perhaps I am too weak to understand, but I wish GM's played that way against me). Were Varshavsky's moves so hard to find?

I am quite curious what actual evidence of alleged "cheating" anyone found. I certainly don't believe his results are so impossible - the possibility of such results is what keeps me playing. Or will we be accused of cheating if we ever achieve them?

-ron kensek
Posted by: ronald kensek at July 4, 2006 23:47

Kazim Gulamali (2276 USCF) appears to have tied for first at World Open. No, not first U2300. I mean first in the whole enchilada. It looks like a 10 or 11 way tie including: Kamsky, Milov, Yudasin, Kacheishvili, Benjamin, Ibragimov, Ehlvest, Ivanov, Yusupov, Gulamali and possibly one other. By my calculations that comes to about $6500 before taxes.

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 5, 2006 00:05

Any more word on Varshavsky? I assume that he was caught with some sort of cheating device, especially if his preformance itself was credible.
Posted by: Daniel at July 5, 2006 00:23

I have met Kazim Gulamali. He normally plays tournaments at the very tough Atlanta Chess Center. Not only are the players there tough to play but also the environment. It is very small and is upstairs in an old not well ventilated building. In the heat and humidity of Georgia you can imagine how it is. I am probably a 1400 player and set fritz 9 to the unleashed setting and the game I played was = until move 35 when i made a terrible blunder. Everyone can have a good tournament once in a while no need to blast others in print until you have more evidence that was has been shown.
Posted by: Glenn at July 5, 2006 00:35

I faced Varshavsky at the National open too. I'm only a 1921 player and not hard to beat of course. He won, but I can't personally imagine him beating titled players with what he showed at the table against me. Varshavsky arrived late, took a lot of time anyway for his first few moves (which were extremely bizarre). I figured he was either high or acting weird on purpose..playing mind games with me. It was 106 degrees in Vegas that day, but he was wearing a heavy flannel shirt- jacket top with the sleeves buttoned down throughout the game. Strange? Hey, maybe air conditioning doesn't agree with him. He'd make a great poker player; his face was frozen in place and he sat there like a statue. My personal opinion is that he's one of the wackiest people I've faced out of several hundred games over the years. BUT! I hope he's not being singled out for being "weird" or lacking social skills (lord knows he's got a lot of company in the chess community!). If there's evidence against him though, I hope he's booted out of organized chess.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 5, 2006 01:23

Probably the strangest chess player of all time is Ivanchuk, and he has been 2700+ for ages.
Posted by: Leto at July 5, 2006 03:09

The final standings show Gulamali on 6.0 points, not 7.0. He lost in the last round to Moiseenko. Gulamali appears to have played a successful "Swiss Gambit", having lost his first two games and gotten (relatively) easier pairings as a result.
Posted by: Icepick at July 5, 2006 07:26

Was there another case of cheating at the end of the WO in the U2000 section? The section leader's opponents were all given half or full byes that completely changed the results.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 09:18

Assuming the truth of the above posts we have a low master:

a) beating a succession of much higher-rated players

b) matching Fritz move-for-move for 25 moves

c) taking a 45 minute mid-game bathroom break.

d) avoiding a summons from the tournament director

The "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is too high for a chess tournament cheating accusation. By the "more likely than not" standard the man's guilty of cheating.

By this standard a low-rated player could safely beat a string of higher-rated players and match Fritz (bizarre computer-moves excepted) as long as he doesn't ditch the tournament director, hang out in the men's room for long stretches, or pay too much attention to a gesturing spectator.
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 09:25

I have done audio interviews with Yoshiru Habu, 13-year old expert Jimmy Canty, Varuzhan Akobian and Emory Tate. I also have a bit of Tate's animated analysis in his win over Columbia's Alonso Zapata. Should be on The Chess Drum soon.

Kazim Gulamali is quite a talent but it best know for being the world's strongest bughouse player. He is "Stanley" on the ICC. I've known him since he was seven years old and is truly a remarkable young man. He scored 6/9 and tied for first for under 2300 beating three GMs... Perelshteyn, Zaitshik and Garcia. It was the first time he had beaten a GM.

There was a case of a Rosenberg cheating in the under 2000 section.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 5, 2006 09:32

Daaim--

Have you any more details about the U2000 cheater?
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 09:46

Peace...

The story that I heard went something like this: Guy is playing incredibly strong chess, and then it is noticed that he has a "hearing aid", which he is concealing with headphones. To make a long story short, it was clear enough a situation that he was forfeited and his opponent, Chris Sevilla, became co-winner of the U2000 section.

In another interesting story, the U1800 section had a somewhat amusing finish on board 1. Going into the final round, one player had 7.5, while his opponent had 7, and one of them would get clear first. The player with 7.5 touched a pawn and then realized that moving it would cost him an entire Knight. As I was told by a friend who was playing in the section, the guy made a loud gasp and held that pawn suspended in the air for what seemed like five minutes! His opponent, realizing that he was now about to win a piece, got up and walked away, going to get a glass of water or somesuch. When he returned, the opponent had moved a different pawn! Needless to say, the gasp drew a lot of attention, as though any more needed to be focused on board 1 in a section of the World Open, and there were WAAAAAAAAY too many witnesses for the guy to get away with it; some even started chuckling at the absurdity of it all. The Knight was lost, and then the game.

Yes, it was an interesting tournament, filled with the customary founded and unfounded accusations of cheating, quick draws at the end of the tournament, and me hanging my queen in one move in a winning position, so I guess there was nothing out of the ordinary. There are more stories to be told, but those will come at a later point.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 10:12

Well, looks like I was dead wrong about Gulamali having won the last game. Go ahead, pillage me. At least Gulamali still ended up sharing top U2300 honors with the Australian kid Moulthun Ly. Not too shabby I would think.

Does anyone have a list of norms?

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 5, 2006 11:15

Before we prosecute this guy, know this: He has been training with a 2300 rated master. The same master who has helped Jimmy Canty gain 400 rating points in a little over a year.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 11:15

TW

who are you talking about when you say.

before we prosecute this guy.

who is this guy.

thanks for clearing it up for me.
Posted by: tommy at July 5, 2006 11:55

The guy accused of cheating in the U2000 section.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 12:01

What's the word on Yusupov's last round game? Was it a draw or a win for him? Lots of confusion over this last night on ICC.
Posted by: anonymous coward at July 5, 2006 12:04

The Fritz match is really the only serious evidence here. Somebody starts playing better--not impossible or even unlikely. Somebody avoids a tournament director--well, we have all done things like that. Somebody takes a 45 minute midgame bathroom break after which he is found to have no equipment on him and loses-- the stress of an impending possible interrogation by tournament director can cause anybody to lose or to have a bout of diarrhea.

Anybody try to Fritz other Varshavsky games from the tournament? It is unlikely he would subject himself to such risk for just one game. How about non-Varshavsky games? (the point of that is to see how often we actually make the same moves the computer would do at such a level)

The "more likely than not" is way too low a standard to use here if we are talking about taking any permanent action aganist the man, such as removing him from USCF or banning him from competitive chess. It is not too low if we are talking about stuff like disqualifying him for violating tournament rules (by avoidiing meeting with t.d., taking a long bathroom break) and subjecting him to additional scrutiny in future tournaments.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at July 5, 2006 12:32

AC, according to the World Open website, Yusupov did in fact DRAW his last round game. However, the Monroi site still shows the same final position as last night, which is the same as the position last night on ICC. I'm going to stick with the hypothesis that there is a problem with the game-score, at least until someone can show a forced draw in the (current) final position.
Posted by: Icepick at July 5, 2006 12:51

A super long bathroom break doesn't indicate cheating, or even contribute very much to the argument. Think about it: would it really take 45 minutes to plug in the position on pocket fritz and commit some quick analysis to memory?

Anybody who spends that much time in the bathroom is either very constipated or doing dope. And by dope, I mean the kind that would make 45 minutes "speed" by very fast.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at July 5, 2006 12:53

Peace...

Well, Yuriy, I believe that if the guy's "hearing aid" was actually legitimate, then it would certainly have behooved him to provide evidence of this, such as a doctor's evaluation. At the very least, the situation would have possibly progressed with his earnings being held until evidence of legitimacy was received; instead, he was forfeited and all was lost. Someone who was guilty of nothing surely should put up more of a fight than he did.

How long did he have this "hearing aid"? How bad is his hearing, that he should have this hidden transmitter in order to be able to understand what people are saying? Why the unusual step of covering a "hearing aid" with headphones? These are questions to which answers must be found, and the answers apparently were not so great.

Finally, TW, simply stating that someone studied with a strong player is not a great way to successfully claim that results are legitimate. People do not suddenly become mighty just because they study with a stronger player. Granted, people do improve, but a coach is merely another tool for improvement, and so there is no logical parallel between Canty's improvement and this player's "improvement" unless they both have similar talent. It is worth noting that other players in the section also have coaches, and coaches who are much stronger and more accomplished, as well; clearly, the merits of one's coach are not sufficient to nullify suspicion when one is caught with a foreign device and cannot adequately explain its purpose.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 12:53

Peace...

Chris, I believe you have the details mixed up. What I heard while I was at my board waiting for the round to start was that Goichberg had requested to speak with the guy, at which point he made off for the restroom for this long "break" before the round even started. It was not a case of going to the restroom to look up Fritz lines, because there was no game to analyze at that point. When the director asks to speak with you and you immediately run away for close to an hour, I should say that it should reasonably be expected that no direct evidence will be found. Supposedly, the guy also had a "lucky hat" that no longer existed when he returned to his board and subsequently lost.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 13:12

Maliq,
I never stated that the guy didn't cheat. I have no reason to attempt to "successfully claim his results are legitimate". I know (and have played)Steve and Jimmy (and his dad)and they've both gotten very strong, very rapidly. Period.
My point was don't prosecute the man without knowing all the facts. I dont know if Steve has bad hearing or not. I do know that he uses headphones all the time. And it not like he was an 1800 winning an U2000 section. His rating is 1974!
Posted by: Tony at July 5, 2006 13:26

Peace...

TW, I understand your point. What I mean to imply is that his results were suspicious not because he was doing well, but because he could not adequately account for the earpiece. For what it is worth, holding a rating of 1974 in an U2000 tournament at World Open does not even come close to making one a favorite. I swear that the U2200 tournament was being played in two sections with the number of experts who were playing U2000. If one truly is 1974, the seas are likely to get quite rough toward the tail end of the tournament, something that will continue to happen as long as the rules that are supposed to discourage sandbagging remain so lax.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 14:02

Maliq,

There is a problem with using the term "guy". Namely that I could be talking about one "guy", Varshavsky, who is 2169 and I assume not playing in the U2000 section, and you could be talking about another "guy" who according to your post has a hearing aid and who was playing in the U2000 section. If I understand Daaim's post correctly, the second "guy" is somebody named Rosenberg.

Yuriy
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at July 5, 2006 14:20

Peace...

Yuriy, sorry for the confusion; you are correct in that I should specify which case I am speaking of, being that there are multiple incidents. I was trying to address two seperate posts in one sitting and apparently did not do so great a job of it.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 15:00

it seems to me that the guy who disappeared for 45 minutes shows a lack of preparation in how to handle these problems.

I think the world open needs to work out the details better and probably have all the players sign some kind of agreement giving the tournament director certain powers concerning allegations of cheating.

if the tournament director walks into the playing all looking for someone that person should not be given the opportunity to disappear for 45 minutes. that is a big failing on the director's part. Maybe he does NOT want to catch anyone cheating because he sees that as bad for his future tournaments. he needs to see catching someone red handed as good for him.

If I go and pay some $400 entry plus hotel, spend lets say $1000 for the tournament total all expenses. then I want to know I have an honest chance to win or lose. that means all those cheating are caught quickly and efficiently and eliminated from playing.

of course for a good laugh all low rated chess players probably dream of what it would be like to win the world open. come in first and be a big hero. then go back home to the local club players and party as the greatest chess player. and have the club champion show us some respect. LOL.

club champions never seem to show respect.
Posted by: tommy at July 5, 2006 17:49

Tommy Dangerfield
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 18:19

There is a common scene at big tournaments - some people talking in non-English, "Russian," after observing their friends games. A good move or a good idea could make the difference of a win or a loss. Is this a form of cheating?
Posted by: Morning at July 5, 2006 18:49

Is Mark Rosenberg really the alleged cheater in the U2000 section? That can't be right. He seems to have finished in 3rd place and his pairings seem "intact". A different Rosenberg who is no longer on the crosstable perhaps?

http://www.worldopen.com/2006Results/20.html
Posted by: Puzzled Pawn at July 5, 2006 19:09

I was told his name is Steve Rosenberg, but there is merely what I was told.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 5, 2006 20:48

Here's the story I got, from the guy who caught thim. Before the final round started, Steve was already a suspected cheater because of computer matching. His 9th round opponent was told that he might be a cheater, and during the round, he asked steve to remove his headphones. Once his headphones were removed, he started covering his ears. Then, somebody followed him to the bathroom and caught him. He was removed from the charts, so Mark Rosenberg's score was legitimate.

He's from my home state of Michigan, and he has been playing since 1990 and has been hovering around 1800 for most of the time, with his peak rating being low 1900s in 1996. Then, he suddenly becomes superman. He wins the Michigan Open and Motor City Open U2000 sections with a perfect score. Then in January, he wins Michigan class A with a perfect score. I finished second in that tournament with a score of 4 out of 5, and he beat me in the 4th round.
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 5, 2006 23:05

Gary Pratt, was Steve Rosenberg wearing headphones in Michigan Class A back in January?
Posted by: Leto at July 5, 2006 23:58

I found the tournament details for Michigan Class A from back in January. http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200601156161.2-12480813

Steve Rosenberg, rated 1895, beat the following opponents:

1. R Raymond Garrison rated 1880, this guy finished 11th scoring only 1.5/5

2. Stanley J Jarosz JR rated 1951, this guy finished 7th scoring 2.5/5, his other loss was to 10th place finisher Ramesh Boleni who is rated 1798 provisional 18.

3. Thomas L Tripplet rated 1832, this guy finished 6th scoring 3/5, his best win ratingwise was against 11th place finisher R Raymond Garrison.

4. Gary Pratt rated 1859, this guy finished 2nd scoring 4/5, his best win ratingwise was against 3rd place finisher Anthony Nichols.

5. Anthony Nichols rated 1956, this guy finished 3rd scoring 3/5, his best win ratingwise was against 4th place finisher William Rhee rated 1916.

The results themselves don't look suspicious to me. I'd like to see the games.

Here's the 2005 Motor City Open details:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200511274911.3-12480813

Again the results don't look suspicious to me. He was one of the highest rated players there.

Here's the 2005 Michigan Open reserve section:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200509054611.2-12480813

Again he was one of the highest rated players. In this tournament the highest rated player he beat was 5th place finisher Justin Aldrich who is rated 1747.

Looking at his rating history, his previous peak was 1934 in September of 1997.

So the results for these three tournaments don't look suspicious to me, i'd like to see some games.
Posted by: Leto at July 6, 2006 00:26

Perfect scores several tournaments in a row are a big red flag.

but if he won 3 tournaments with perfect scores then his rating should have shot way up high before the world open. How can he win 3 under 2000 tournaments with perfect scores and still play the under 2000 at the world open.

I would think that Goichberg could get some device to detect transmissions and use the divice to scan the playing halls and also check everyone out on the top boards.

it still seems almost impossible for a player to transmit his moves to a computer who then transmits back what to move. this is a very difficult thing to do.

and what happens when the player makes a mistake. he is suppose to move the pawn to a3 but instead moves the pawn to h3 by error. now the board and the computer are different.

cheating just does not seem possible.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 01:19

Regarding mr Varshavsky, go to uschess.org and type in his last name in MSA section, check out his rating history and the rest is clear.
Posted by: whocares at July 6, 2006 01:25

It seems like tournament directors now need to include something like a contract that players must sign saying that the organizer, at his/her discretion, has to power to remove anyone from the tournament at any time. That might be a bit rough, but as long as the organizer is reputable, tournaments might be able to attract even more people who might have been put off by the possibility of cheaters.
Posted by: g at July 6, 2006 01:45

A radio frequency (RF) sweep might or might not detect a cheater. First, there is a large amount of other wireless traffic (cellular, WIFI possibly, satellite, unlicensed bands, etc) over a very wide range of frequencies. Identifying the cheater's signal, which could be very narrow in frequency or very low in power, among all these others would be no small task. If a specific individual is suspected though, chances of catching them would be much improved by placing the receiver very close to the suspect so the signal would be quite strong. Another issue I can think of is that transmission and reception might not be continuous; instead, data would be exchanged in quick bursts (i.e. transmitting the opponent's move or receiving the suggested move would take only milliseconds). The communication could therefore be missed unless at the right frequency at the right time is examined.

Of course, there are very likely complete systems which have been designed to do exactly this task - find a specific signal in the presence of many others (organizations paranoid about being bugged, such as government or law enforcement, would own them).

Wouldn't the hardest part be transmitting moves back to the computer? You'd need a little keypad or button or something to enter them. Of course, if the player in question had a very tiny camera affixed to hat or ear maybe, or the game was known to the spectators in real time (by video, internet, or could be seen from the spectator's section) then a conspirator could just play out the game on a remote computer and relay the suggested moves back by voice (earpiece).

What other measures could be taken to prevent this sort of cheating rather than just looking for the patzer who's playing way above his rating? Holding tournaments in prison-like venues, banning all electronics, searching players upon entry --- none of these seems desirable.
Posted by: Cynical Gripe at July 6, 2006 02:05

Hi, just a few (not so?) random thoughts:

I can not really comment on whether Eugene cheated or not in Philly this year. Especially as I was too busy trying not to throw away more won positions to really follow anything else going on. I do remember being amused by his wearing a hooded jacket for most of the 2005 Foxwoods tournament. Hindsight being 20/20, many would now say "Oh, he must have been concealing a device back then!" While I allow for that possibilty, I am also afraid of the usual rush to judgment.

The most compelling evidence against Varshavsky is the alleged concordance of his moves with Fritz and Shredder. People have mentioned the Smirin game, and I heard some of the young masters at the tourney suggesting the same regarding his game against Bartholomew (incidentally, the great hope of Minne-snow-ta chess :)). The problem in making inferences comes when the position is a forcing one with a fairly narrow "tree of analysis". I haven't had the time to see either game, will do that before commenting further.

The suggestion that the TD should have the power to remove a player at his/her discretion would be fine, if this same World Open did not have a history of fairly wacky incidents, with some equally wacky (in my opinion) TD decisions. This incident easily comes to mind (with apologies to Hikaru): www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2002/NB_Akeem.html

Ok, let me stop here before I say something (else?) really stupid.

Cheers,
Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 6, 2006 02:28

The problem with "cheating" in these tournaments is not the "cheaters" but the fact that low rated chess players can win $$$$$$$$$$$$ by beating players who also have not achieved great acumen at the game. Are there other games where non-professionals who are simply average players can win thousands of dollars by beating other non-pros? If weaker players have enormous prizes, there will always be people trying to cheat. I wonder how many people who were cheating or tried to cheat were not caught or suspected at all. Probably at least a few.

There is no way to stop all the cheating, unless you eliminate enormous prizes for the weaker players. The best players in the event (Kamsky, Milov, Ehlvest, Benjamin, etc etc) won ABOUT $6K, and almost every other player who won their respective sections won more. A friend of mine, who is 1300+ scored 7-2 in the U1400 (=3rd-7th) and won $1800+, MUCH more money then the GMs who got 6.5 and tied for 10th in the Open section. My friends performance was quite good, but I think the players who scored 6.5 in the Open section play chess SLIGHTLY better.

That being said, the World Open is the most fun tournament ever, and seeing all the GMs play, and play hard was great! The Open section is great, both for playing and watching. There was so much fun all the time, that I will try to go every year, notwithstanding all the cheating, yelling, cell phones, screaming, lights going off all the time.....I love that tournament!

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 03:00

I cant agree more with Ben, and i have been saying this for a long time especially in regards to the failed HB tournament: class players DO NOT need to make large sums of money. They are not chess proffesionals, unless they are sandbaggers like Varshavsky(check out his rating history and shall have no doubt).
When you are making a huge prize for weak players you are giving them an incentive to cheat or sandbag because some people will look at these prizes from a purely business point of view, i e how much money can i make if i do a,b, c and d. Amateurs are not afraid of losing face or disrespecting the game as some titled players might. I hope Goichberg is reading this because it is his model of a typical american swiss system with high prizes that are the target of cheaters and sandbaggers. And if you think this is a problem now just wait a few years, when the technology gets better, and this will become everyone's nightmare. I dont really see a solution, perhaps metal detectors and strip searches might work.... but do we really want to go throught that?!
Posted by: I at July 6, 2006 03:43

Until someone decides to do the hard work of actually finding real sponsorship for chess tournaments, large class prizes are here to stay. The reigning tournament model in the US is basically a redistribution of wealth, taking lots of good money from hundreds to thousands of amateurs to create prizes for the professionals. Why do the amatuers comply? Partly, maybe mostly, because the gambling instinct tells them there is a chance that once every 3-4 years, they can actually recoup their entry fee + travel + accomodation/hotel + feeding + unpaid time off work + etc , etc. Besides "special" tourneys like the US Open, which tend to draw a bit of a different crowd, there is usually a good correlation between the size of the prizes and number of people participating.

Am I biased here? More likely than not, since I am one of those amateurs. Do I empathize with the pros? Of course, everytime I play in a tournament, and watch a player rated 1160 win $10,000, it is hard not to.

I do take exception to this notion that amateurs are somehow more innately "wired" to cheat (forgive the pun). The law of numbers will determine that more cheats will be amateurs, but such folks will also exist in the pro ranks, albeit using different tools/methods.
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 6, 2006 07:21

Oke--

Thanks for the interesting Chessdrum link.

In this dust-up I'm on Nakamura's side and Goichberg's. A twelve-year-old at a chess tournaments should leave his bouncy-ball home and Naka acted reasonably enough in taking it away.

In these sorts of confrontations somebody's got to get in the first punch---and I'd prefer that the recipient be the ball-bouncer.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 07:57

It's quite opportune for an immigrant from an Eastern European nation to game the system. How many FIDE 2200+ players live there, and how easy is it to establish a 1200 rating in $20 tournaments, and selectively proceed as Varshavsky did, which is sandbag his way up to 2200, winning massive prizes at every level? That is, without even progging as Varshavsky might have?
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 6, 2006 08:01

For those of you advocating more discretionary power to TDs regarding tossing people out of tournaments--they already have it. It's quite clearly stated in the 5th Ed rulebook (and several editions before). It's simply not exercised very often, as most of us TDs are trained to be careful when using that power.

The problem is, while everything's fine and dandy in theory, how would *you* feel if you're having the tournament of your life, and an opponent charged you with cheating? Wouldn't you like your presumption of innocence, however well your moves corresponded with a computer?
Posted by: cynical at July 6, 2006 09:26

Let's not get paranoid about cheating and $$$$$$$ in chess. Comment's posted by guys like Der Strudel get on my nerves.I happen to be from Eastern Europe,never played chess there, moved to US, my rating has been between 1920 and 2090 for the last 5 years and ... whenever I lose to a 1800 guy I run into insinuation that it is sandbagging. Here is a few points worth keeping in mind:
1. If you think that your opponent is FIDE
master you can easily check this by going to
FIDE web side and looking at his rating
history. The link is http://www.fide.com
2. Class prizes are OK. Everybody has a chance
to be a winner. In a way,they provide
motivation to work on the game. If you think
that winning $2000 in U1400 is a big $$$$$$
I'm sorry for you.
3. A little math now, if over 256 players
compete in one class then taking into account
that draws are quite rare on this level, at
least one player will have perfect score
after 8 th round (256 = 2^8). Thus, it is
quite conceivable that the winner in 9 round
tournament will have 8 points or better.
Assuming the class is U2000 such score gives
perfomance rating over 2300. But it does not
indicates that the winner is FIDE master.
Just somebody had to win !
Posted by: Bogdan Wojcieszyk at July 6, 2006 09:47

I think the attitude that "lower" players should not be able to play for nice prizes is total rubbish. Why should the bulk of players, who are also actually paying entry fee, not be able to play for a big prize? If the GMs and IMs want to play for deeper payout then they should be required to pay and pay more than the "lower" players. This is how backgammon tournaments work. The masters pay anywhere from 5-10x as much as the amateurs and they only play for the money in their section. Seems reasonable to me.
Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2006 10:19

I agree with Ben Finegold that the world open is just a super tournament. it is a happening. it is an experience. it is very special.

you go down with 8 or 10 chess playing buddies and you get a couple of rooms. stay up all night playing blitz and then with a perfect score going into the final day you fall asleep at the board and lose the last 2 games getting nothing from the event. LOL.

you say next year it will be different. but next year it is all the same. sleeping on the floor. eating terrible. staying up all night. playing too much blitz. meeting all the other players and having a total blast. it is the greatest.

no one ever seems to win any money. yeh big deal one guy out of over 200 in his section gets a few bucks. he deserves it. if some guy who is low rated at chess did not walk off with a big check then where is our dream for next year. the low players pay the bills for the tournament. they deserve some small compensation.

Remember the lower rated players paid up to $400 for entry. the Grandmasters paid nothing for entry fee. and 9 GM's got $6000 each for $54,000. where did that $54,000 come from. of course it was paid for by the lower rated players.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 10:36

Tommy's right. Ben Finegold is cutting off his nose to spite his face. Without amateur support (high entry fees and prizes) Grandmasters in this country would have slim pickings indeed. Unless of course many of the Gm's have become arrogant enough to believe that amateurs would continue to pay high entry fees with the vast majority of the money going to the top boards. The only other alternative is corporate sponsorship and we all know what that amounts to.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 11:35

As a close friend of Steve Rosenberg's, I have read these posts with great interest. He seems to be taking a beating here. Essentially, people have assumed that Steve cheated because his results are too good! Itis impossible to play this well, so he must be cheating! Looking for the flimsiest proof to justify there gut feeling, people are pointing to the earpiece and lack of cooperation when confronted by the TD's as evidence.

I am not buying it, and I don't believe it. Steve did not cheat.

I was not at the World Open, and did not witness the events as they unfolded in the U2000 section. But I know Steve quite well and would like to speak to his chess play and personal character.

Regarding Steve's chess strength, Steve has indeed been on a remarkable run. As others noted, prior to the World Open, Steve recorded 19 wins in a row. He went 7-0 at the Michigan Reserve (U1800). He then went 7-0 at the Motor City Open (U1800 section), followed by 5-0 at the Michigan Class (Class A section).

I was at all of these events, and witnessed many of the games live. I saw no reason to suspect cheating. Especially at the Motor City Open, which was played at sudden death time controls.

I have studied many of these games one-on-one with Steve. In a lesson type format, we reviewed the games and the reasoning behind his moves. The play in these games is entirely consistent with Steve. These are indeed his moves.

As for the games themselves, While Steve played well, these were not GM caliber performances. There are errors in all phases in the game. For example, his openings do not follow theory, the middlegame strategy is questionable in places and endgame technique is sometimes lacking. Play is not perfect.

Recalling from memory, there were several games where Steve was either worse, or his opponent missed chances. For example,

In the Michigan Class, Jarosz was a clear pawn up in the endgame (though Steve had piece activity as compenstaion) before dropping a piece.
Also in the Michigan Class, Triplett was a clear pawn up before dropping a piece.

At the Motor City Open, his last round opponent (Jia I think) was two pawns up in the endgame before dropping a piece.

I would also add that Steve has been playing frequently on the USCL server. His quick rating has jumped from about 1825 to 2050 in about a years time. His quick results are consistent with his slow push results. I did not go through the crosstables, but I believe he only lost two or three games in over a year, against mostly 1500-1900 competition.

Isn't it possible that the guy has improved his skill level, and made a jump in strength to approximately 2100 level?

Regarding the specific circumstances at the World Open, I can confirm that Steve does indeed wear a hearing aid. He has visited my family socially, and my wife and I both recall him wearing one.

On the headphones, he has played at the board with headphones for years and years. He was not using them to conceal anything.

A hearing aid is a receiver isn't it? What does that prove?

Assuming he was cheating, and the hearing aid was in fact a two-way recevier, how is he communicating with the computer or accomplice? You say he is getting moves in his ear by the receiver, but how are the moves going from the live board to the computer?

Of course, I don't know how it went down, but I can imagine Steve taking an in your face attitude as a response to being confronted by the TD's. To an outsider, I understand how not coopoerating with authority (not submitting to a search) would look like an act of guilt. But it certainly does not constitute proof.

And it fits with Steve's personality. In an argument, Steve is prone to taking a principled stand, and then not budging. Period.

Beyond the chess itself, and the specific circumstances, I don't believe Steve is the type of person who would cheat. As I mentioned before, Steve and I have been close friends for twenty years. He was my best man at my wedding. As a person, he demonstrates more principle and character than any person I have ever known. I would trust him with the lives of my family.

I just don't believe it. But don't go by me. I challenge you to judge for yourself, by looking at the chess itself.

These game scores below are available from the Michigan Chess website. (http://www.michess.org/features/2006Jan_2005MichOpRes.shtml). It covers some games from the Michigan Reserve. Do these moves look like Fritz or Shredder to you?

Paul Kane (1619)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
4-day, Round 2
Budapest, A51

Notes by Tim McGrew

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5!

Yes, we award punctuation for fighting spirit! I was just recommending this defense to someone at the Michigan Amateur in October.

3.Nc3?!

White immediately steps off of the theoretically approved path and finds himself fighting to show that he has equality. No one should shelve the game at this point as irrelevant: when you play unusual openings with a logical basis, your opponent will often sidestep the main lines either through ignorance or through trepidation. Either way, what happens here is of great practical relevance.

3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd1 Be7

This is very nearly the only move Black makes in this game that I don’t think is strongest. Here 5...Bb4!? is positionally threatening. White will not want to have doubled, isolated c-pawns, but that means he must take a tempo out to do something relatively passive like 6.Bd2 Black’s pieces will all find good squares and White is left with the puzzle of how to develop effectively. Alternatively, 5...Bc5 looks active and sets a small trap: 6.Bg5? Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Ng4+ 8.Ke1 Qxg5-+

6.Nf3 d6 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 0-0 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.Qc2 Bf5

Somewhere around here, White must have sensed that the game was not under his control. The pawn at c4 is supposed to confer a space advantage, but it seems to be posing no particular difficulties for Black. So White reaches for his bishop to brush away the pesky attack.

12.Bd3??

When I make a move like this, I usually sense what went wrong as my hand leaves the piece. On the other hand, 12.e4 isn’t such a tremendous idea either. Black can either back up with 12...Bg6 and torment the e-pawn or else lash out with 12...Nxe4!? when things get hot on the e-file: 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 Bf6! 15.Qb1 (15.Qc2 Nb4 16.Qd2 Bxb2 17.Qxb2?? Nd3+-+ picks up the queen at a bargain price.) 15...Qe6! 16.Ng1 Nd4! 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 and White is losing the trapped rook on a1. A simplistic material count might leave one thinking that this is not so bad, but after 18.Qd1 Qf6! 19.Rb1 Qxf2+ 20.Kd2 Re4!-+ the truth becomes apparent: White’s pieces are badly tangled up and Black’s other rook will join the attack presently.

12...Nb4!

Ouch! That hurts!

13.Qd2

From the standpoint of offering resistance, it would have been better to sacrifice the queen for two minor pieces with 13.Bxf5 Nxc2+ 14.Bxc2 White is, of course, still losing. But he has more pieces on the board than Black does (six to five) and his king is safe for the time being. It is very hard to make a decision like this over the board, but every strong player develops a sense of which lost positions offer even minimal swindle potential and which do not. This is something you cannot learn from Fritz!

13...Nxd3+

From now on Black has a happy choice of natural moves, all of them strong.

14.Ke2 d5 15.Nd4 dxc4 16.Nxf5 Qxf5 17.bxc4 Rad8! 18.Kf1 Bc5 19.Nd1 Ne4! 20.Qe2 Nf4! 21.Qf3 Nd2+

The remainder of the moves are illegible on the scoresheet, but it’s a reasonable guess that the game finished something like this: 22.Ke1 [Or 22.Kg1 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qh3 24.exf4 Re1#] 22...Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qd3 24.Nc3 Ng2# (Editor Note: The final moves were confirmed to start with the following illegal move.)

22.Ke2 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qd3+ 24.Ke1 Qe2# 0-1

==============
Justin Aldrich (1762)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
3/4-day, Round 4
Vienna: Falkbeer (Three Knights), C28

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.a3 Be7 5.Nf3 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.d3 h6 8.0-0 a6 9.Nh2 Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 d5 13.e5 Nd7 14.Qg4 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Qe7 16.Rae1 g5 17.h4 h5 18.Qxg5+ Qxg5 19.Bxg5 Ndxe5 20.Rf6 Rxf6 21.Bxf6 Bd4 22.Bg5 Rf8 23.Be3 Rf5 24.Kg1 Bxe3+ 25.Rxe3 Nd4 26.Nf3 Ndxf3+ 27.gxf3 d4 28.Rxe5 Rxe5 29.Ne4 Rb5 30.b3 Rb6 31.Nf6+ Kf7 32.Nd7 Rb5 33.f4 Ke7 34.Ne5 Rc5 35.Nc4 b5 36.b4 Rc6 37.Nd2 Rxc2 38.Nb3 Rc3 39.Nxd4 Rxd3 40.Nc6+ Kf6 41.Ne5 Rxa3 42.Nd7+ Ke7 43.Nc5 Rc3 44.Nxa6 Rc6 45.Nc5 Rxc5 46.bxc5 Kd7 47.Kf2 Kc6 48.Ke3 Kxc5 49.Ke4 b4 50.Ke5 b3 51.Kxe6 b2 52.f5 b1Q 53.f6 Qe4+ 54.Kd7 Qxh4 55.f7 Qf6 56.Ke8 Qxf7+ 57.Kxf7 h4 0-1

==============
Rosenberg,Steve (1731)
James Canty Jr. (1690)
Réti: King’s Indian, A08

1.Nf3 e6 2.d3 d5 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.0-0 Nge7 6.e4 Ng6 7.Nc3 d4 8.Ne2 e5 9.h4 Bd6 10.h5 Nge7 11.h6 gxh6 12.Bxh6 Rg8 13.Qd2 Bg4 14.Nh2 Be6 15.f4 Qc7 16.f5 Bd7 17.Bg5 0-0-0 18.Ng4 Qa5 19.Qxa5 Nxa5 20.Nxe5 Be8 21.Bf6 Nac6 22.Nxc6 Bxc6 23.e5 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Rde8 25.exd6 Nd5 26.Be7 Ne3+ 27.Kh3 Nxf1 28.Rxf1 Rg7 29.Nf4 h5 30.Nd5 Reg8 31.Rg1 h4 32.g4 1-0

==========
Douglas Fick II (1670)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
Alekhine: Modern B05

Notes by Bill Calton (BC) and Tony Palmer (TP)

BC: Steve’s recipe for success - solid and opportunistic play. If you can cash in on your opponent’s mistakes while making no significant errors yourself, you too may go 7-0 in the Reserve. Simple chess.

1.e4 Nf6

TP: Alekhine’s Defense, where Black dares White to take over the center with pawns, only to play against White’s center anyway.

2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3

TP: A good approach, versus kicking the Nd5 with 4.c4.

4...Bg4 5.Bc4

BC: Innocuous. The bishop belongs on e2 in this system.

5...e6 6.h3 Bh5 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be2

BC: White decides the bishop should be on e2 after all. But this costs a tempo, and Black should be equal now.

TP: Retreating the bishop to break the pin - good strategy.

8...0-0 9.c4 Nb6 10.Nc3

TP: White must be careful now, since the Nb6 hits the c4-pawn and the only defender is the Be2. Watch what happens next.

10...Nc6

BC: Black is threatening ...dxe5.

11.Be3?

BC: Which White overlooks. 11.exd6 appears necessary, when play resembles one of the theoretical lines except that White’s bishop is on c1 instead of e3 (due to the earlier tempo loss Bf1-c4-e2). Black has more than enough play, but this is preferable to the game continuation. 11...cxd6 12.d5 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Bg4 As an aside, with the bishop on e3, books consider this position better for White. However, FM David Levin argues otherwise on davidlevinchess.com.

TP: 11.b3 would defend the c4-pawn and prevent doubled pawns on the kingside.

11...Bxf3 12.gxf3?!

BC: 12.Bxf3 Nxc4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 preserves White’s pawn structure and offers some, though not enough, compensation for the pawn.

TP: 12.Bxf3 Nxc4 snatching a clear pawn.

12...dxe5 13.d5!?

TP: Advancing in the center, but the d5-pawn will become isolated and weak. 13.dxe5 might have been better, accepting loss of a pawn.

13...exd5 14.cxd5 Nd4!

TP: Centralization!

15.f4

TP: 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Qxd4 Bf6 17.Qd2 Bxc3 18.Qxc3 Nxd5 and Black stands better.

15...Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 exf4 17.Bxf4 Bg5!

BC: Black picks up another pawn while forcing favorable trades.

TP: Black is very patient about grabbing the d5-pawn.

18.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 19.Kh2 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Qxd5

TP: Now Black is two pawns up, however this can be a tricky endgame with major pieces around.

21.Rfd1 Qe6

BC: Two pawns up, Black is happy to trade all day long.

22.Qd2 Rae8 23.Re1 Qf6 24.Rxe8

TP: 24.Rg1 keeping pieces on the board would improve. When down in pawns, trade pawns but not pieces.

24...Rxe8 25.Re1

TP: Same comment.

25...Rxe1 26.Qxe1 Qf4+ 27.Kg2 h6

BC: No back rank accidents.

28.Qe8+ Kh7 29.Qb8 Qg5+ 30.Kh2 Qe5+ 31.Kg2 Qxb2 32.Qxc7 Qxa2 33.Qxb7 a5

TP: Black has a won game.

34.Qe4+ g6 35.h4 h5

BC: With f7 safely protected, there will be no perpetual accidents either.

36.Kh3?

BC: White is lost in any case, but this makes it easy.

36...Qe6+ 0-1

TP: Alertly trading queens into a winning king and pawn endgame. Nice technique by Rosenberg.
Posted by: Bill Calton at July 6, 2006 12:23

At some point, I may decide to talk in some detail about both the Varshavsky and Rosenberg situations, as I worked the floor at the World Open and was heavily involved in both decisions. There's a lot of misinformation floating around, but in general, I think the correct decisions were made in both cases. I will say that the major differences between the two situations were (1) Varshavsky consented to searches and Rosenberg did not; and (2) No receiving device was found on Varshavsky, while one was found on Rosenberg.

For now, I want to address a couple of other comments about tournaments in general, because that's all I have time to do.

(1) Obviously, the class sections of CCA tournaments subsidize the Open sections. If the pros don't like that amateurs get to take home bigger checks, then they have two options. First, they could be more sponsor-friendly. (Watching a GM complain about computers in an interview after winning an Intel-sponsored tournament comes to mind.) Along those lines, they should also be more people-friendly. The truth is that many masters are snobbish - which is fine, as long as they don't outwardly display it. It's called "public relations" for a reason.

The other solution is for Open section participants to pay much higher entry fees, and have Open prizes come from Open entries. The problem is that the Open section would have to have entry fees around $1000-$1500 to offer similar prizes (and this doesn't factor in losing entries from lower masters not interested in dropping that kind of moolah).

(2) There are obviously no other tournaments like the World Open in terms of prize funds for class players (well, maybe the Chicago Open is closest). The World Open is so big, though, that cheating must be proactively addressed. For years, the perception has existed that cheating is clearly allowed at CCA events, and that nothing would be done for fear of legal repercussions. That perception has caused the CCA to take a lot of hits, both in print and by word of mouth - because, as anyone who has ever dealt with media will tell you, perception is reality.

I think that Bill Goichberg took a major step to reversing that perception by dealing with the Varshavsky and Rosenberg situations as he did. It should be clear now that, while tossing a player out of a tournament is a major step that no decent TD likes doing, the CCA is more than willing to aggressively investigate and respond to highly suspicious situations. Of course, this will also have to be filed with the USCF for possible membership action as well. Ultimately, I hope this helps to deter those considering cheating.

Also, this has started the discussion among CCA staff of how to secure CCA events in an ever-evolving world of wireless communication. This discussion, though clearly not concluded, can only benefit the CCA and large USA open events in general.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 6, 2006 13:12

Thanks for comming to his defense Bill. I have also been a close friend of Steve for close to 20 years, and I am convinced he did not, nor would he ever cheat in a chess tournament. Bill is correct that he is a principled person who would never submit to being searched without a search warrent. The possibility of winning a few thousand dollars is not enough money for him to abandom these principles, nor is it enough money to make him cheat at a chess tournament and defraud other enterents. This is a man who donates his time to be a head admin on Chess Live, dirrects in scholastic tournaments here in Michigan, and has sat on the Michigan Chess Association board of dirrectors. I was not at the World open, but I was at a few of the other tournaments that he recently won. At the Michigan Class championship, I sat at the next board 2 feet away for a few rounds, and can assure you there was nothing out of the ordinary.
I also analysed with him many of the games from those tournaments, and he articulated solid reasons for each of his moves, and a firm understanding of the positions. His improvement comes from many hours of study, work that most of us are not winning to invest into improving our games.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 6, 2006 13:25

Boyd,

Thank you for your comments. If you happen to be in on any of the CCA conversations about handling potential cheating, could you remind folks that some of the blocking devices available also affect electric wheelchairs and/or pacemakers?

As a wheelchair-dependent person, this issue has come up for me in other contexts, and people are always surprised at first. But it is a public safety issue, particularly for events/meetings held in hotels and other public venues.

It's also an issue with an international audience, where one can't be sure that warning signs will be read and understood.

regards,
duif
Posted by: Duif at July 6, 2006 13:34

Peace...

Bill, I understand your defense of your friend, but you must understand that saying someone has a confrontational nature is not grounds for dismissing what appears to be suspicious behavior. As I stated before, it should have been easy enough to confirm that the earpiece was legitimate if your friend wanted to do so. If his "confrontational nature" got in the way of him making use of this obvious defense, then he has nobody to blame for his plight but himself; the same holds true for one who is accused of committing a crime and refuses to provide an alibi.

Now, the matter of whether or not your friend cheated in the Michigan tournament is absolutely irrelevant; people brought it up as a minor inquiry because of the context of our conversation, but it never was a part of the case against him in Philly. On a related note, the games you provided are not pertinent to this argument; only games from the 2006 World Open are. We need to see games from the World Open, not games against 1600 players in a tournament that did not hold nearly the same high stakes.

In addition, your assumption that he should be in the clear if his moves do not match those chosen by computer programs is flawed. First, it is easy enough to choose from lines that are evaluated lower but nevertheless still favorable, in which case a person would not match the computer move-for-move. Second, one need not be using Shredder to win games in an U2000 section -- direct assistance from a strong expert is all that is needed to give good chances of success.

In closing, NOBODY assumed that he had to be cheating because he was playing well; most of us had never heard of this man prior to this weekend. It was believed that he was cheating because he was not able or not willing to adequately explain his behavior after people grew suspicious of this transmitter (and, allegedly, the fact that he covered his ears after being asked to remove his headphones). If he is innocent, then he has more than enough incentive to actually speak up for himself; if he chooses not to do so, then people may feel even more justified in assuming his guilt.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 13:42

Our records indicate that the person posting as "Maliq Soter" has been found to be annoying by 95.3% of readers to this blog. "Peace" is not a valid way start a conversation nor is "Hotep" a valid way to end one. Here in America and in all English-speaking nations, we use "Hello" and "Goodbye" or variations of thereof. Please update your records to reflect this modern usage.
Posted by: Chess Auditor at July 6, 2006 13:51

Im not commenting on any cheating allegations but Why is Varssavesky accused of sandbagging as suggested above? If you look at the MSA he was a class C player 10 years ago and then took a break from tournaments. If he is indeed honest, is it unheard of to improve that much during a hiatus?
Posted by: . at July 6, 2006 13:52

How did Steve get to Philly? He drove from Michigan? Long drive. Since we know he didn't fly, as he would have refused to take off his shoes or put himself through the airport metal detectors or his carry-ons through the scanner.

The point is, if indeed an innocent man has been punished, this is one time to hope that Goichberg did consult a lawyer before forfeiting him. Because this is one of those exceptions that seem to prove the rule: clearly things will work out best for everyone if the innocent man (if indeed he is innocent) who was punished lacks a means of redress.

We all give up some rights when we enter an organized competition (baseball league, golf tournament), or a profession (doctor, lawyer, financial planner). One of the main rights anyone gives up in return for the resulting benefits, is their right to refuse to cooperate with an official inquiry when there is suspicion of rule-breaking or cheating.

In this sense, the TDs who asked to search Mr. Rosenberg did in fact have the equivalent of a "search warrant", since they were conducting an official inquiry and it appears one or more of his opponents had complained.

Obviously no one would want people monitoring a private sporting activity to be required to ask the government for a warrant any time thay have to resolve a suspected cheating case.

Some here have accused me of trying to "turn chess tournaments into Guantanamo Bay" with my anti-cheating petition shown in my link below. In this instance, it seems that if someone argued it was OK for Mr. Rosenberg to never submit to being searched without a search warrant, then THAT PERSON would be "turning chess tournaments into Guantanamo Bay" -- i.e., inviting government intrusion into a private activity.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 13:52

Suppose I suddenly figure out how to beat GM and IM opponents with any sort of consistency. I wonder how long it will take for people to accuse me of cheating? For those who don't know me, I drive a power wheelchair and wear an unusual hearing aid. Oh, and I have a 2300 chess rating.

Michael Aigner

P.S. At least I've been around master sections long enough that people know me. I don't conceal my hearing aid and, although I wish I could, I can't conceal my wheelchair.
Posted by: fpawn at July 6, 2006 14:02

Comments by Boyd Reed, I guess, one World Open TD confused me even more. He says:
(1) Varshavsky consented to searches and Rosenberg did not
(2) No reciving device was found on Varshavsky while one was found on Rosenberg

Well, if Rosenberg refused to be searched how did you found a device on him? May be he just needs a hearing device? I would suggest that we show some constrain before accusing people in public of cheating. I hope that everybody understands that the burden of proof is on accuser in such case. I hope that nobody thinks that since Rosenberg played well, had a device in his ear and refused to be searched adds up to a proof that he was cheating.
Posted by: Bogdan Wojcieszyk at July 6, 2006 14:26

Cheaters will always be amoungst us, that's just a fact of life. If and when one is caught at a tournament what happens, a slap on the wrist and banishment from that particular tounament? Certainly not much of a deterrent to prevent it from happening again. I would not have a problem with a person who was caught, and the proof was beyond doubt, being banned from the USCF for life.

With technology becoming more and more sophistacted, harsher measures are needed to help keep this malevolent act in check. Joining the USCF and participating in tournaments is not a right, it's a priviledge and as such should be revoked when said circumstances prevail.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 16:04

Bogdan.

A lower-rated player makes a perfect score at a big tournament and refuses to let you examine the device in his ear. What would you do?

Competing in a chess tournament nowadays should imply consent to a reasonable search. "Let's have a look at that device in your ear" is reasonable. If a player refuses, the TD should forfeit him and the USCF should ban him for a good long time.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 16:15

**Before I begin, let me say that I was very hesitant to post this. I am not the type of person who would call out a tournament player - let alone an opponent - for cheating in such a public forum. However, I honestly feel that Eugene Varshavsky DID use outside assistance in several of his games (including mine) at the World Open. I will give my observations about his games and behavior during the tournament and leave the judgments to you**

I was paired with white against Varshavsky in round 5. I already knew who he was, as he had just defeated my good friend FM Robby Adamson in the previous round. I checked out the TWIC database to see if he had any recent games. He didn’t. This was not unusual for a player with no FIDE rating, so I just went to the tournament hall and played 1.e4 at the 6 PM start time.

The description of Varshavsky given by whiskeyrebel above seems almost identical to what I observed during the game:

“Varshavsky arrived late, took a lot of time anyway for his first few moves (which were extremely bizarre). I figured he was either high or acting weird on purpose..playing mind games with me. It was 106 degrees in Vegas that day, but he was wearing a heavy flannel shirt- jacket top with the sleeves buttoned down throughout the game. Strange? Hey, maybe air conditioning doesn't agree with him. He'd make a great poker player; his face was frozen in place and he sat there like a statue. My personal opinion is that he's one of the wackiest people I've faced out of several hundred games over the years.”

In our game, Varshavsky came to the board some 20 minutes late. He also took a lot of time in the opening – even on 4…dxc6. The only strange thing I noticed about his attire was the blue bucket hat he wore that drooped low around his ears. He wore the same hat against Adamson in round 4, Kacheishvili in round 6, and Smirin in round 7 before the TDs made him take it off. Varshavsky sat at the board the entire time, only getting up briefly after time control was reached. I never saw his eyes leave the board.

The game itself was one of the strangest I have ever played. Varshavsky gave up a pawn on move 14 in a very standard theoretical position (14…b5 is almost universally played). After I played 15.Nxc4, I expected to consolidate the extra pawn, trade pieces, and win in the endgame. However, Varshavsky suddenly put up surprisingly strong resistance. He began playing fast and I had a difficult time finding good squares for my pieces. I was particularly struck by the unpredictability of Varshavsky’s moves after move 14. I remember thinking to myself several times that it felt as though I was playing against a computer. I did not even consider moves like 26…Ne7, 33…Rg8, 41…Bxe8, and 49…b6 during the game. It was very frustrating.

Bartholomew - Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8. Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1 Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7 21. Bg3 Be3 22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 27. Ng3 Rde8 28. Kf1 Rhf8 29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7 33. Nce3 Rg8 34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40. Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46. Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5 53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59. Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

Granted, my technique in this game was poor. However, I believe Varshavsky played at a level far above his actual strength following move 14.

I went on to finish with 5.5/9 in the tournament, but I followed Varshavsky’s games closely each round. His round 6 game against Kacheishvili started setting warning bells off in my head. I couldn’t locate the game score, but imagine a closed Sicilian position with white having pawns on e4 and d3, a knight on c3, and bishops on c4 and c1. Black has pawns on e6 and d6, a knight on e7 and a queen on d8. Got it? Well, Varshavsky (playing white) played Be3?? here and quickly found himself down a piece after the obvious …d5. This horrendous blunder that most 1400s wouldn’t make seemed very suspicious to me.

Round 7 was really where all the “fireworks” began (sorry, that was a bad July 4th joke). Suddenly, Varshavsky is playing GM strength again and manages to beat world-class GM Ilya Smirin in a topical open-Ruy line:

Smirin - Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2 Qxd4 34. Nxd4 Be4 35. g3 Re8 36. Rc1 g5 37. f5 Rxe5 38. gxh4 gxh4 39. Re2 Ree7 40. Rf2 Rc7 41. Rcf1 Rf6 42. Rf4 Rg7 43. R1f2 Kf7 44. Rxh4 Ke7 45. Rg4 Rgf7 46. Kg3 Bxf5 47. Rgf4 Bd7 48. Re2+ Kd6 49. Rh4 Rg7+ 50. Kh2 Rg5 51. Rd2 h5 52. Re2 Rf1 53. Rd2 Be8 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ 55. Kxg2 Rd1 56. Kf2 Rd3 57. Ke2 Bg6 1-0

Michael Aigner’s finding that black’s last 25 moves match Fritz 9 perfectly is especially troubling in this game. In my opinion, Varshavsky should have been questioned and/or searched by the TDs IMMEDIATELY after this game. Instead, everyone watched as Smirin resigned and Varshavsky calmly sauntered out of the playing hall. It was not until the next morning that he was finally confronted.

The details of what happened during that confrontation seem pretty sketchy to me, so I won’t comment on them. I do know that Varshavsky – Najer began over an hour into round 8. Varshavsky was made to play without his bucket hat, and was quickly crushed. The final round was similar, as he was absolutely destroyed by GM Magesh Panchanathan. I couldn’t find these two game scores either, but let me assure you that Varshavsky’s strength in them could not have been a point over 1500.

Perhaps the best indicator of Varshavky’s guilt was his behavior in the final two rounds. It was in his eyes. For the whole tournament (and during our game), he kept his eyes glued to the board or his scoresheet. I never once saw him look around the room. Against Najer and Panchanathan, however, he seemed distinctly aware that he had been caught. I even made eye contact with him a few times. You know that look a dog gives you when it knows it has done something wrong? That was what I saw in Varshavsky’s eyes.

So, where can we go from here? For one thing, I believe that none of Varshavsky’s opponents should be penalized in rating for having lost or drawn to him. More importantly, I think that the Continental Chess Association and tournament directors should pay much closer attention to what is happening in big-money tournaments like the World Open. I know situations like these are rare and that 99% of chess players play the game honestly. However, it is the duty of the TD to step in and say “ok, enough is enough.” In this case, I believe that there was more than enough evidence to throw Eugene Varshavsky out of the tournament and ban him from rated chess. I genuinely enjoy playing in Goichberg/CCA events, so I hope nothing like this will ever happen again.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 6, 2006 16:40

It's amusing to me how some GMs/IMs, like Mr Finegold, will rant about the unfairness of class players winning huge prizes at events like the World Open. He should be thankfull that such lowly players, are willing to allow a portion of their steep entry fee's to be used to subsidize the creation of bigger open section prizes, than would otherwise exist. Most of the pro's realize that this is a good deal, and either welcome this arrangement, or are at least smart enough to keep contrary opinions to themselves. After all ... the amateur prizes could be just as large, with lower entry fees, if the open sections were eliminated.

There are other ways to achieve that chess fantasy weekend experience that the amateurs seek. We could probably fly in Topolav, put him up in a real nice room for 2 nights at the Four Seasons down the street, and pay him $10,000 to analyse games, eat meals with players, give a lecture, do a simul, etc. We would have random drawings to determine which lucky players got to participate in the more intimate events. Who knows, for $25,000 we might be able to swing Garry, and keep the same entry fees. Hmmmmmm....

Posted by: RP at July 6, 2006 17:08

As a minor correction, John Bartholomew picked up my error in the game result of Smirin-Varshavsky, which was indeed 0-1.
Posted by: fpawn at July 6, 2006 17:24

John,

In going over the games and the information supplied I think I would be suspect too. Having played fritz too often for my own good, there is a similar style of play. On the other hand, I think your 47th move made it easier for him. Those rooks had to come off the board. I would have liked to have seen how he would have played it out after that.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 17:52

Many of the comments seem to fall in with either of two positions concerning (either or both of) this year's crop of World Open cheating suspects:

1) They are being unfairly accused, punished based on insufficient evidence, etc., or

2) They were caught in the act, and Goichberg (and the USCF) wimped out by not banning them for life.

I think the real lesson is somewhat different; and in fact is equally applicable regardless of whether Varshavsky and/or Rosenberg is innocent or guilty of cheating.

The lesson, as I see it, is that big-time organizers, starting with Goichberg, need to focus serious attention on a variety of nuts-and-bolts issues (technological, logistical, economic, and evidentiary/legal) that arise in connection with detecting, proving, and punishing instances of cheating -- especially, computer-aided or communication-aided cheating of the kind discussed in this thread. And, the USCF should provide any support it can to organizers and TDs as they work their way through these difficult issues.

I do NOT believe that the CCA chickened out, or doesn't really want to catch cheaters, or is afraid to toss them when caught. I DO believe they are operating at a disadvantage -- which became evident in their response to the Varshavsky and Rosenberg allegations -- because they haven't been paying close attention to the potential for cheating, believing it to be too rare to be worth mounting a pro-active (as opposed to re-active) effort to stamp out.

Two things seem clear:

1) Organizers are still responding to incidents such as those at the World Open on an ad-hoc, entirely reactive basis. As a result, even Goichberg and his staff -- who one presumes represent the state-of-the-art in TD'ing and organizing big-money chess events -- seem poorly prepared, and are forced to make important decisions "on the fly."

2) The CCA (at least) is wising up. I found that Goichberg and associates are more concerned about the problem, and more sophisticated about how to combat it, than they were a year ago (when a suspicious earpiece-wearer tied for 1st in the U-2000 section but no one even made note of the earpiece until AFTER THE TOURNAMENT WAS OVER and he had collected his prize).

The need for serious study and advance planning for dealing with cheating, was the central message of the open letter that was sent to USCF Executive Director Bill Hall last November (www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com), bearing signatures of two well-known chess writers/instructors (one a GM, one an IM) plus 4 frequent class-section competitors including myself.

We received no response of any kind from Mr. Hall or Mr. Goichberg -- not even a form email acknowledging receipt of our letter.

Subsequently, I stopped raising the issue. The main obstacle, it seemed, was that players themselvers were unconcerned. Among various players I spoke to after the petition appeared, I found almost none willing to give up any rights or conveniences at all, in order to help create an environment where cheating would be harder to get away with. And if the players (customers) don't want it, the organizers aren't going to do it; they after all are in business to satisfy their customers.

I hope that the discussion on this thread indicates that more players now feel a sense of outrage, and a sense of urgency, to do something about cheating. That was the sort of groundswell I had hoped to create a year ago through the petition.

Perhaps it will take more high-profile incidents before enough customers (players) feel personally affected by (potential) cheating that the TD community will wake up and mount a more organized, planned campaign to combat it, instead of having to constantly re-invent the wheel.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 18:17

Since I know of at least one loser here who actually spends his time counting any errors that crop up in my comments (he has actually admitted such in one of his comments on another Dirt thread), I will correct my previous one to note that the suspicious earpiece wearer who tied for first last year at the World Open played in the U-2200 section, not the U-2000 as initially stated.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 18:24

Peace...

First, to add to the discourse regarding high prize funds for amateur players, I actually believe that stronger players who spend time training amateurs benefit from this. The reason is that lessons with them are therefore seen as an investment even if the student does not have aspirations toward a GM title, because the immediate goal of preparing for one of these tournaments is quite strong motivation for seeking the wisdom of stronger players.

Second, I imagine that a big part of the dissonance in the discussion about penalizing cheaters revolves around how much evidence should be required before a person is booted from an event. Rare will be the instance when a person is caught in a restroom stall with Pocket Fritz in full effect or somesuch, so there really does need to be a standard that allows for punishing of suspicious behavior. The point of addressing cheating is that the event should be fair to all entrants, and the greater evil for an organizer is definitely in appearing not to be concerned about fairness in the event. The accused should have fair recourse for defending themselves, of course, but this is one case in which erring on the side of caution translates into excluding an individual who is thought to be cheating and is uncooperative when confronted. Clearly, we should not have a burden of proof that allows us only to penalize people whose actions are obvious.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 18:51

one other little tidbit from my National open game with Varshavsky. He did talk to me once. Boards and pieces were provided at this event. All the players in a row of boards with the same color faced the same direction. I opened with 1.Nf3. He arrived late and stared at the board for 7-8 minutes. Finally he softly asked if we could turn the board around; I hadn't noticed..but somehow the A-H 1-8 grid had been turned around. We corrected it. I was surprised a 2200 player would even notice this. How many players at that level use the dummy markings? He took quite a bit of time as black to reach the following set up: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 b6 3.cxd Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qb7 (wow). 5.d4 Nf6 6.g3 e6 7.Bg2 Qa6 8.O-O Bb7 He wandered away from the playing room for 15-20 minutes at this point. I wondered if this was some sort of pet system of his. If so, why would he take several minutes per move against a weaker opponent? How could he defeat a GM with this stuff? Is he a cheater or just a very weird guy? Or maybe a normal guy posing as a bizarre genius to avoid suspicion of cheating? If he is cheating it seems like he would've changed his suspicious looking heavy clothing and hat by now..or would he? Once again, I want to state that I'm not suggesting he needed "help" to beat me. This is meant as more grist for the mill.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 6, 2006 18:53

Peace...

I played Varshavsky in the World Open in 2003, winning a very long game against him in Rd. 4. I do not recall this suspicious hat nor jacket being part of the attire, but I do recall him getting to the board late and taking a while before meeting 1. Nf3 with 1. ...d5. The time use could simply be some psychological ploy, I guess. Anyway, he did not play incredibly weak chess, losing the thread only once we got to the sudden-death blitz-off phase, so the blindness against Georgi this year is quite surprising. (Nevertheless, even such blindness is not evidence of cheating, because I pitched my queen in Rd. 7 in some elementary fashion, and please believe that I did not mean to do it! Ironically, after that long game, I played the night round against Chris Sevilla, who was the opponent of Steve Rosenberg in the final round of the World Open this year.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 19:25

John Bartholomew--
Excellent post.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 19:51

I dont know any of the people discussed here. I was not at the world open. I do have a vested interest in fairness and truth as I believe everyone has the same vested interest.

I am happy to say from the evidence presented here so far that I believe that Steve Rosenberg played honestly and did not cheat. My view is that the problem is that the TD did not show appropriate leadership. there should have been a writen posted policy on cheating. so that when Rosenberg was questioned he would have been prepared for the questioning. he would have known that he was going through a certain procedure. but Steve did not have this. he had total focus on him and the unfair situation. he was in a unique position with nothing to fall back on. no rights and no procedures stated. it was totally unfair the treatment that he received. I more than understand his decision to not cooperate. it must have seemed like the only thing he could do in an incredible situation. especially being innocent.

The failing here has come from the powers to be. and as usual those with no power lose when the power is wrong.

Pressure must be brought onto Goichberg to have a printed statement of policy on cheating. what the player can expect will happen. what is the policy on wearing a hearing aid for those who are hearing impaired. had Rosenberg known the policy before arriving at the tournament he could have brought with him a doctors statement of his hearing condition. something no one would normally have.

it looks to me like there was a suspicion over a hearing aid the previous year and steve suffered for it. he came not knowing that the powers were going to be gunning for anyone who was hearing impaired to make up for the previous year.

I believe an innocent man was wrongly hurt. I think everything should be done to restore his reputation.

Goichberg is President of USCF also. he is in too many power positions to not fix this problem. it is now shown how wrong it is for him to try to treat these matters by the seat of his pants at the time of happening. The players deserve to have a policy in place. a policy so the player knows what is happening. with such a policy I believe that Steve Rosenberg would have more fully cooperated and this incident would not have spiraled out of hand.

the one with all the power carries the burden of responsibility and fairness. Goichberg let us all down. He let us down as the TD and as the president of the USCF.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 20:11

I dont know any of the people discussed here. I was not at the world open. I do have a vested interest in fairness and truth as I believe everyone has the same vested interest.

I am happy to say from the evidence presented here so far that I believe that Steve Rosenberg played honestly and did not cheat. My view is that the problem is that the TD did not show appropriate leadership. there should have been a writen posted policy on cheating. so that when Rosenberg was questioned he would have been prepared for the questioning. he would have known that he was going through a certain procedure. but Steve did not have this. he had total focus on him and the unfair situation. he was in a unique position with nothing to fall back on. no rights and no procedures stated. it was totally unfair the treatment that he received. I more than understand his decision to not cooperate. it must have seemed like the only thing he could do in an incredible situation. especially being innocent.

The failing here has come from the powers to be. and as usual those with no power lose when the power is wrong.

Pressure must be brought onto Goichberg to have a printed statement of policy on cheating. what the player can expect will happen. what is the policy on wearing a hearing aid for those who are hearing impaired. had Rosenberg known the policy before arriving at the tournament he could have brought with him a doctors statement of his hearing condition. something no one would normally have.

it looks to me like there was a suspicion over a hearing aid the previous year and steve suffered for it. he came not knowing that the powers were going to be gunning for anyone who was hearing impaired to make up for the previous year.

I believe an innocent man was wrongly hurt. I think everything should be done to restore his reputation.

Goichberg is President of USCF also. he is in too many power positions to not fix this problem. it is now shown how wrong it is for him to try to treat these matters by the seat of his pants at the time of happening. The players deserve to have a policy in place. a policy so the player knows what is happening. with such a policy I believe that Steve Rosenberg would have more fully cooperated and this incident would not have spiraled out of hand.

the one with all the power carries the burden of responsibility and fairness. Goichberg let us all down. He let us down as the TD and as the president of the USCF.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 20:11

People here actually defend terrible chess players winning $10K or so, whilst good players who do well win $50, if lucky. Then there are scores of posts about what to do about alleged cheating, possible cheating, and real cheating. Keep my opinions to myself? Isn't this a blog where anyone can post whatever they feel like saying? Isn't this the "Daily Dirt?"

The GMs who won $$$$ in the Open DO NOT get free entry, as $$$$ is taken out of their prize. If a GM finished all his/her games and wins no prize, they are not charged an entry fee. The Open section has the most players, so I do not see the lower sections "subsidizing" the Open section.

I know quite a bit about the "cheating" situations in the World Open, and for a floor director to assert the "correct" decisions were made in the cases mentioned is a very odd statement. Nobody points out there was probably a lot of cheating that was not suspected, as if the TWO cases discussed here were the ONLY ones in the entire event and everyone was "caught."

One poster wrote that the World Open and possibly the Chicago Open are the only events that offer ridiculous prizes to weak players. I think there are a few more events where weak players can win thousands.

If you do not like my posts, or do not agree with what I say, then don't read them. My name is clearly marked at the end of each post. Unfortunately, I read all the posts! :)

The World Open is a great event, and the cheating makes it even more interesting....but it is silly to think cheaters will be caught. Some will, and some won't...no system is perfect, and when people cheat at chess tournaments with sooooo much money...I do not blame the "cheaters" ...I blame the system which instills belief that people who have little ability have better chances to make $$$ than others. This situation DEMANDS cheating take place....and it does. I wonder if about 100 people were cheating and 2-3 were caught....that would be funny (and possibly true).

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 20:15

Would you give a 2K class prize back if Kelly won it?
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 6, 2006 21:42

Normally I'd be disinclined to argue with a chess pro here, but Mr. Finegold's last comment shows a high enough level of arrogance and illogic that I feel a modicum of comfort in pointing it out.

First of all, a review of the just-posted rating lists for the World Open suggests it isn't true that the Open was the largest section. (Although it could be true after all, because re-entries were not allowed in the Open but were allowed in other sections such as the U-2000 which shows 42 more players than the Open, and the U-1600 which shows 7 more players than the open.)

Regardless, I believe at most big tournaments the top section draws fewer entrants (and especially, fewer PAYING entrants) than some or most of the lower sections. That should be self-evident, since by definition there are more average-level players than strong players, and the majority of class players in practice choose to play in class sections (even if some choose to "play up" a class).

Of course, even if the open section at the World Open did have more players than any other single section, the other sections would STILL be subsidizing the open prizes (depending on the degree of difference in entries), because prizes in the Open section were 66% greater than comparable prizes in most of the class sections.

So, we see that Mr. Finegold began his rant with a likely factual error ("the Open section has the most players,..."), immediately hitched to an obvious error in thought ("...so I do not see the lower sections 'subsidizing' the Open section.")

It is true that it isn't only pros who sometimes inveigh against CCA (and other big Swiss system) prize distributions that include large class-section prizes. I've seen some class players such as Josh Gutman make the same argument.

Along with Mr. Finegold, such people never say where they would get the money to make up for the amateur entry fees that currently pay for the bulk of Open section prize funds. (As RP, Okechukwu Iwu, and "Mike" all correctly indicated earler in this thread, Reduced class section prizes = reduced class section entry fees AND fewer entrants in class sections = less revenue to support Open section prizes.) Last year I repeatedly challenged Josh Gutman on that point, both on Dirt and another blog, and he never gave an answer.

I'll add that I've also heard the position on the other extreme -- one that I suspect would make Mr. Finegold shiver in his boots. Not long ago I listened to a B-rated player argue passionately and in detail that the prize fund in each section should be in exact proportion to the total entry fees received for that section, so that no section would ever have to subsidize another section. If I'm right that top sections usually draw fewer, not more, entrants than class sections at big tournaments, then such a system would actually require SMALLER prizes for the Open than, say, the U-1800; or else the Open section would have to charge higher entry fees than other sections, in order to support higher prizes for the Open (the way it's done at backgammon tournaments, according to "Mike" above).

I personally would not favor such a system. I do believe that we average players benefit to some degree from being able to watch socialize with, and in the best case even analyze with, GMs and IMs. Therefore I am perfectly happy to see a portion of my entry fees subsidize "their" prizes. It's all a question of proportion. I think the present prize allocation is just fine.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 21:51

"I do not blame the "cheaters" ...I blame the system which instills belief that people who have little ability have better chances to make $$$ than others."

Welcome to America Ben, that's about as asinine a statement as I've read or heard in sometime. Since you so freely express what I can only interpret as an elitist attitude, you so easily fit the stereotype of what many of us poor little chess amateurs perceive to be typical character flaws of many GM's; arrogant, self-serving and self righteous to name a few.

Also, in one sentence you express the opinion that one should be allowed to express "whatever they feel like saying" then a little later you say "if you don't like my posts, or do not agree with what I say don't read them. Do you actually take the time to think about what your saying or is this more of that self-serving blather?

If all of the Grandmasters thought along similar lines as yourself, maybe it would be a idea if they lost the monetary support of amateurs. Not to denigrate those who do, but there's always an opening at Burger King or a Taxi Service, Ben.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:16

I played Varshavsky at the 2005 National Open in Vegas as well. He showed up 30 to 40 minutes late, and then actually mentioned he was using a hearing aid - and that if I wanted to offer a draw, I should tap the table. Then he spent another 20-30 minutes on his first 6 or 7 moves (in a simple French position). He then proceeded to play fairly quickly the rest of the game, and reached move 40 with more time than I did - although he had a lost position at that point.

The other oddity in the game was his strange rook moves, playing Rac1 at move 14, then a couple moves later moving the same rook to b1, then the next move to d1. It inspired me to make some of my own strange rook moves in the game. :) Although I thought the whole experience very strange, it must be said that if Varshavsky had won this last round game, I believe he would have gotten prize money.

[Event "Vegas"]
[Date "2005.12.28"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Varshavsky"]
[Black "Evans"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Nbd7 6. Nf3 h6 7. Nxf6+ Nxf6
8. Bh4 Be7 9. Bd3 c5 10. c3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 O-O 12. O-O Qb6 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. Rac1
Rfe8 15. Rfe1 Rac8 16. Rb1 a6 17. Rbd1 Rcd8 18. a4 Qa5 19. b3 Rc8 20. c4 b5 21.
axb5 axb5 22. Rc1 bxc4 23. bxc4 Bb4 24. Re2 Qa7 25. Bxf6 gxf6 26. Nf3 Qa5 27.
h3 Rc5 28. Nd4 Qc7 29. Re4 f5 30. Rh4 Qd8 31. Nf3 Bc6 32. Rf4 Qd6 33. Rd4 Qe7
34. Be2 Ra5 35. Rb1 Bc5 36. Rdd1 Rea8 37. Qc1 Qf6 38. Nd2 Qh4 39. Rf1 Ra2 40.
Qd1 Rd8 41. Qb3 Raxd2 42. Rb2 Rxb2 43. Qxb2 Qg3 0-1
Posted by: Bela at July 6, 2006 22:17

I'll add that Ben is intelligent enough to know that if he wants real cash for his time, he'd better either 1) start playing 2750+ FIDE chess, or 2) get a real job in the private sector! Cuz mere 2600 USCF players offer nothing not already satiated by 2700 FIDE players and thus get paid zilch.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 6, 2006 22:24

I posted something on here but it was withheld for proofreading by the webmaster. I can't remember what I wrote, but I just want to say that maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think Goichberg is consciously asking one section to subsidize another. Again, maybe I'm just cynical, but Goichberg is setting all the section prizes so as to draw the most profit for himself! If the open section's prize fund is large then it's because a big prize fund draws big names which lure more people to go to his tournament which makes him more money. If the section prizes are so high then it's for the same reason: to get more money from himself! This isn't about Robin-Hood. This is about the pockets of Goichberg. Of course I could be wrong. But then you don't have to believe me so it's okay for me to be wrong.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 6, 2006 22:28

Kelly would never win a class prize of $2000....she plays in the Open section and beats (and loses and draws) good players. Beating weak players is not a way to improve your chess, and it is a waste of time to drive 600 miles to play weak players.

A lot of posters here refer to my name and then say why I am wrong about all my statements. Attacking me and my views is not relevant to the arguments made. If weak players want to pay $$$$$ and win $$$$$ by cheating, then so be it. I do not care what the prizes are in the top section. People who post here make a lot of false assumptions about me and my posts. They think I want $$$$$$ in the Open section, and everyone else can go to hell. Although that is a fine idea, that is not the point of my posts at all. I play chess when the prizes are very small. I have won tournaments in Michigan, where I live, and get $20-$50 sometimes. But my wife likes to play chess, and we usually play in the same events, as chess can be fun and we can always learn. I would play in the World Open regardless of the prizes, and I (and most people) are glad 50 GMs and lots of other strong players come to play chess. It is a lot of fun to watch and be there and talk to old friends.

What is not fun (although it is funny) is seeing low rated players yell, cheat, scream, bang the clock to death, argue, and cause a commotion due to the fact that $$$$$$$ is on the line that should not be. Chess is a fun game, and it is great to learn from....but when $$$$ is given for weak play, the game becomes something else. This $$$$$ for low rated players causes cheating to occur, and it will never stop. People will always try to cheat, if it can give them a winning edge, and I mean winning at chess and rating points, and $$$$$. The money is the real incentive to cheat, so there is cheating.

All of my arguments against HUGE prizefunds for weak players is not an argument FOR huge money for top players. If top players (and I do not mean me, I mean better players like Kamsky, Milov, etc) get huge huge money...then....sometimes they (not Kamsky or Milov) cheat (or try to cheat) as well. Some GMs have excellent reputations and never do anything that is even close to inappropriate, but, since a lot of GMs make money playing chess exclusively, there are SOME suspicious activities, and sometimes these are frowned upon (people who read the Dirt know what I mean!).

The prize allocation is not fine as a poster asserted, it just leads to more cheating and more refined ways to cheat.

The World Open is actually more fun due to the silly prize structure. It makes things more exciting for a variety of reasons (not all chess related).

Sorry I made factual errors in my post...I must be the first poster ever to do that on this blog.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:31

Bill Goichberg, in my opinion, has an excellent sense of fairness. Now, what he thinks is fair, may not be to your liking. Bill obviously feels the Open section should have bigger prizes (like most people think rich people should pay more taxes). But, he wants a lot of people to come to his tournaments, so he has high prizes for everyone, and he wants to maximize his profits as well (who doesn't?). Yet, he pays GMs to give lectures eveyday and a GM will analyze your game as well, so everyone can have a good time at the tournament.

I agree that Bill's intent is not to "subsidize" the top section with low rated player EFs. Although it may work out that way, that is the SMALL prize low rated players pay to see 50 GMs in one room!!! The World Open is a fun tournament if you just come and watch.

You guys think I am arrogant.....I read that Onischuk showed up, and decided not to play because chess sets and clocks were not provided for the top players! I do not know if that is 100% accurate (I did read it in more than one place).....but I must say, whilst I agree with Oni, I played in any case (and I had no equipment, but that did not stop me!). :)

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:36

Don't tell "der strudel" that I tied for first in the 2005 National Open last year and the 2006 Chicago Open this year....as well as =1st in the 2002 World Open and the 1994 US Open....or he may make give back my prize money due to my awful 2600+ USCF rating.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:45

Good, then lets have $10 entry fees with a $100 first prize and a $50 second prize for each division at every tournament nation wide. Grandmasters could probably afford to pay that and cheaters certainly would not have much incentive to do their thing. Oh, wait a minute, there wouldn't be any Grandmasters.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:54

I do not understand chesstraveler's post. Maybe you can elaborate? If you are going to mention me by name, please give your own name. You quote what I said, and it makes perfect sense, and you do not say why it does not.

Obviously bad chess players should not win lots of money for playing chess, that makes no sense.

Welcome to America? Thanks!

I am not a GM, but when I get the title, I will try to live up to your expectations.

I do not see amateurs supporting GMs or other professional players. Top players make money by playing tournaments and winning prize money, writing, and giving lessons. The World's best players generally make money in sponsored tournaments and matches by large corporations, as would be expected.

(IM)BPF :)
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:54

The last post by chesstraveler describes 95% of the tournaments in Michigan...except the prizes he mentions are usually not that high! :)

I have organized and directed a lot of tournaments similar to that entry and prize structure.

We have very little cheating here as a result, you are correct.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:57

BPF,

Now I can add "namedropper" to the list of character flaws.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:57

My last post is in reference to Onischuk.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:59

Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.

By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59

I will go back to reading silly posts instead of posting them myself and arguing the gawking rabble.

Usually I can post for 3-4 days before getting fed up, but my patience is either less than it is used to be, or people here are even more annoying than before (as the mayor's aid said to Joe Quimby, "Dumber sir.")

Ok, back to reading the insulting posts instead of absorbing them! :)

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:02

yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife.
Posted by: john at July 6, 2006 23:05

Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!

First, it is spelled "you're" not your.

Top level Eurotrash??? lol....that is funny, but I am not sure why.

My book on the Smith-Morra was co-authored by Bob Ciaffone, and it generally gets good reviews, mainly due to the fact that it is all original analysis and most of it is quite good. I did none of the prose, just the analysis. The book was published in 2000, so there have been some errors found. We may come out with a second edition, not sure....that is really up to Bob.

I am surprised you did not like my book, yet you have all three of my DVD's? Most people told me they like the DVD's, but you are entitled to your opinion. Making them was fun anyways.

Ok, I am done......I know when I am not wanted! :)

BPF

PS Still fun to read the posts when people don't lambaste you to pieces!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:08

Mr Feingold:

I have admired your play for a long time but I have a few comments.

Your statement that if someone doesn't agree with you to not read your posts is, well, in very poor taste, to say the least and projects an arrogant attitude which I'm sure you didn't mean.

I did a quick calculation and concluded that the lower sections are subsidizing the Open section to the tune of about $47,000. The total prize fund available for the Open was about $129,000.

I just don't understand your abvious hate for lower players who can win more money. Give us little guys a chance, please. Heck, didn't a 1600 rated player qualify for the US Championship?

I hope to play in the World Open some day. I haven't played in a rated tournament in about 20 years but my friends say that I play much better than my current rating (1589) would indicate, maybe 1650. lol

I certainly hope you get the GM title you have deserved for so long!

Cheers,

John J.
Posted by: John J at July 6, 2006 23:28

I have to say I fully support Finegold in this. I also think the huge prizes to patzers (yes, sorry to say it, everyone below U2200) are ridicilous. It surely gives an incentive for them to cheat and that means cheating will happen.

I also think the entry fees of $400 are way too high and a lot more people would take part in these events if the fees were to be lowered. Taking part in a tournament should not cost more than $150, IMO. I haven't seen any open tournaments in Europe with higher fees than that, usually they are even lower.

Play chess for the game itself, not for the money.
Posted by: EeEk at July 6, 2006 23:38

An International Master gives his opinion (yes, his OPINION)on how to stop cheating and all you guys can do is insult the man??????????
You dont have to agree with him, but calling him AND his wife names is pathetic. Did he attack any of your wives or family members?
Posted by: Tony West at July 6, 2006 23:47

Welcome to the interweb, Tony West, where any yahoo can get online and trash people he's never met.

BPF, take care to have a thick skin. Your blog is good. Keep it up.
Posted by: anonymous coward at July 7, 2006 00:03

OK I apologize to Finegold and his wife for saying they suck. I will refine my comment about Finegold, he doesnt suck but he sure seems arrogant from his comments. He wouldnt have a world open, chicago open etc to go to if it wasnt for the fishes.

Posted by: patzerjoe at July 7, 2006 00:04

I must say that Ben Finegold is making me laugh. His math skills are so bad that he cannot see how the lower sections subsidised the Open section. He then thinks it is ridiculous that the money left over for the lower sections actually goes to the people playing in that section that put up the money in the first place. LOL....... What IS ridiculous is his wife playing in the US Championship with a B rating. He allowed that farce to continue but wants to bitch about the lower sections being paid back the money they put into the tournament. The arrogance this displays is amazing.
Posted by: James at July 7, 2006 00:19

Finegold is not very perceptive: the money he talks about are not "prizes". They are "winnings" from a gambling operation called "World Open". When the "prizes" come from the players' pockets, they are just gambling.

It is that simple.
Posted by: tgg at July 7, 2006 00:38

I played Varshavsky in the last round of the National Open, where I was very surprised by the way he played. It seemed like he had no real understanding of the game but managed to find a lot of strong moves. If he did use computer assistance, I am pretty sure he didn't do it on every single move, since I think any computer program would have crushed me in the position that we had after move 30. As it happened, he eventually let me escape into a fortress in the endgame.

[Event "National Open"]
[Site "Las Vegas USA"]
[Date "2006.06.18"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Kriventsov, Stanislav G"]
[Black "Varshavsky, Eugene"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3 Nbd7 9. Qd2 Be7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. g4 Nb6 12. Kb1 a5 13. h4 a4 14. Nc1 d5 15.Bxb6 Qxb6 16. Nxd5 Bxd5 17. exd5 Rfe8 18. g5 Nh5 19. d6 Red8 20. d7 Ng3 21. Rh2 Nxf1 22. Rxf1 Bd6 23. g6 hxg6 24. h5 e4 25. hxg6 Bxh2 26. gxf7+ Kf8 27. Qxh2 a3 28. Qh8+ Kxf7 29. Qh5+ Ke7 30. Nb3 Qf6 31. bxa3 Ra6 32. Re1 Rxd7 33. fxe4 Rc6 34. e5 Qf2 35. Re2 Rd1+ 36. Kb2 Qg3 37. a4 Rd5 38. a3 Rh6 39. Qf5 Rc6 40. Qe4 Qc3+ 41. Ka2 Qc4 42. Qg2 g6 43. Qh2 Kd7 44. e6+ Rxe6 45. Qh7+ Kd6 46. Rxe6+
Kxe6 47. Qxg6+ Kd7 48. Qf7+ Kc8 49. Kb2 Qc6 50. a5 Rd8 51. Qf5+ Kb8 52. Qe5+ Ka8 53. Qc3 Rc8 54. Qxc6 Rxc6 55. c3 Ka7 56. Kc2 Rc4 57. Kd3 Ra4 58. c4 Kb8 59. Kc3 Kc7 60. Nc5 Rxa3+ 61. Kb4 Ra2 62. Nb3 Kd6 63. Nd4 Rb2+ 64. Nb3 Rb1 65. Kc3 Rf1 66. Kb4 Rf3 67. Nd4 Rd3 68. Nb3 Rf3 69. Nd4 Rf1 70. Nb3 Re1 71. Nd4 Rb1+ 72. Nb3 Kc6 73. Kc3 Kd6 74. Kb4 Rb2 75. Kc3 Re2 76. Kb4 Rf2 77. Kc3 Rf1 78. Kb4
1/2-1/2
Posted by: Stan Kriventsov at July 7, 2006 02:06

Ben,

There is a big difference in class players having to pay $300 entry fees up front and professional players having themn subtracted only IF they win a prize. I don't have to go into finance and cash flows to show that the professional players have the ultimate advantage of delaying "payment" of the fees. Even the professionals that did not win received a chance to win without having to pay the standard fee.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 7, 2006 02:10

On another note...

...here are a few interviews I conducted with assorted players.

http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2006/NB_WorldOpen2.html

Photo gallery coming!
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 7, 2006 02:20

It's called an "advance" and is used all the time in publishing. Say the "advance" is $100 and the royalties on sales is 10% and the book costs $10. The author of the book does not begin to collect royalties until he or she sells 100 books to make up for the $100 given to him or her in advance. If the author does not sell 100 copies then he or she still gets to keep the $100 given to him or her in advance.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 7, 2006 02:21

Ben is right about everything. it's easy for all of your pussies to attack him when you don't give your real name and can't even play 1300 level chess. Next you'll want the PGA tour to have miniature golf with huge prizes for idiots who can't play real golf...like me.

Ben, don't even waste your time. Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics....
Posted by: fluffy at July 7, 2006 02:36

Comments on the USCF site regarding the 'scandal'.

"Another scandal came about in the U2000 section, in which an alert TD noticed a suspicious looking hearing aid. The player was called out of the tourament hall, and the hearing aid was removed. A web address printed on it pointed TDs to a website for small radio transmission devices. The player was forfeited and his opponent guaranteed a share of the U2000 prize."
Posted by: John J at July 7, 2006 02:51

Obviously somebody in a position of power (perhaps the tournament promoters) could simply declare that people wearing hearing aids need to declare the fact ahead of time with the T.D. and be prepared to submit to routine inspection. To borrow from ol' Nimzo: "the threat is stronger than the execution". Warning cheats ahead of time that you're looking can only help. This would protect the dignity of people wearing them for legit purposes and make the rest of us feel safer about gambling hundreds of $$$ for entry fees. Athletes are subject to equipment spot checks..I don't see anything insulting about it.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 7, 2006 03:57

Who are you calling eurotrash, Patzer joe? It is people like you that have created the streotype of a 'dumb and ignorant American' here in Europe. My apologies to the good people of America, but that's the way it is: the ignorance people like Patzer joe show smears the image of America and not only in the eyes of the Europeans. And by the way, most of the stuff that Finegold is stating makes alot of sense.
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 04:00

We've alerted the NSA to Mr X, an America-hater. His hard drive has been searched, imaged, and permanently cached by the Total Information Awareness system. His communications and computing activities is monitored 24/7/365 henceforth. Further expressions of opposition to our New World Order and we may rendition him, or electronically pinpoint his location and scramble an F-16 for a surgical strike, under the Bush Doctrine "you are either with us, or annihilated by us".
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 04:28

That's lame. If you knew how to read in between the lines you'd realize I am not an America-hater at all. But obviously you lack that ability.
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 05:51

Ben makes sense to me, and even for this place I'm surprised at the level of mindless yelling going on, even if you disagree.

Q
Posted by: Quely at July 7, 2006 05:58

Mr X:

Obviously you eurotrash (that's "euro" with a small "e") haven't caught on. We distinguish clearly: black or white. You're either good, or you're evil. You're either with us, or you're dead. We are the world's policemen and must maintain world order -- our Order. Patzer Joe is an American, which makes him better than you. Even if Joe's rated 729 USCF, and you 're an IM, which you're not.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 06:06

I salute you in the spirit that is obviously required (even though it sickens me): Sieg Heil!
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 06:50

Hmmm, some things Ben said I agree with. I agree mostly agree with EeEk and that is hard for me to say:-) The entry fees are way too high and more than what my U2200 patzer behind will ever pay. I like to play chess and everyone has to start somewhere. I don't understand you loud mouths that can't carry on a decent conversation without insulting a man's family with whomm you don't agree. I guess that is the great thing about the anonymity of the internet. You can't break stupid peoples noses.
Posted by: Glenn at July 7, 2006 07:30

"The problem with "cheating" in these tournaments is not the "cheaters" but the fact that low rated chess players can win $$$$$$$$$$$$ by beating players who also have not achieved great acumen at the game. Are there other games where non-professionals who are simply average players can win thousands of dollars by beating other non-pros? If weaker players have enormous prizes, there will always be people trying to cheat. I wonder how many people who were cheating or tried to cheat were not caught or suspected at all. Probably at least a few."

That's as irrational a statement as I've ever seen on here. What would these 'weak' players be doing spending a thousand dollars to play in Philadelphia if there wasn't some sort of incentive? Who do you think feeds the pot at other tournaments, there, IM? Some people have regular day jobs, and can't devote themselves 24/7 to chess - that means they shouldn't have a chance to compete for anything but rating points.

As for the relative paucity of the money for the GMs, there was crowding at the top. For example, what makes an IM like yourself think he's going to take home a payday in a field of strong-to-medium GMs? And as to Kamsky getting only 6K for his efforts, maybe he should have thought twice before taking that 'GM draw' in the last round.

Jacobs point is great - "I'll add that I've also heard the position on the other extreme -- one that I suspect would make Mr. Finegold shiver in his boots. Not long ago I listened to a B-rated player argue passionately and in detail that the prize fund in each section should be in exact proportion to the total entry fees received for that section,"

And I guess I'll put my name on this one:
Posted by: Patrick Harley at July 7, 2006 10:56

You patzers are pathetic to attack Finegold for speaking the absolute truth. Chess has been hijacked by the likes of Goichberg and other organizers that are in it for the money. To maximize profit, the maximum turnouts are needed. Every tournament measures success by the total turnout GET IT? IT is nothing but preposterous that Chess has downward spiraled into Class players winning more than the top and BEST players. How can Chess be taken seriously in it's current form when a 1344 rated player earns more than all 50 Grandmasters? I cannot rationally explain this to anyone without the inevitable " WHY WASTE TIME ON THAT SILLINESS?
No other serious activity demeans itself to adopt this format. Where is the emphasis on excellence and improving? If you wish to pony up several hundred and make twenty something thousand dollars then take up Texas Hold-em or any of the other Casino games.
Posted by: unCommon Sense at July 7, 2006 11:21

I find Fluffy calling others "pussies" amusing, just a thought. :) Also, the "B player" with the idea of prize funds being in direct proportion to entry fees in each section is right on the money.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 7, 2006 11:27

fluffy your argument has too many holes in it.
**********

Ben is right about everything. it's easy for all of your pussies to attack him when you don't give your real name and can't even play 1300 level chess. Next you'll want the PGA tour to have miniature golf with huge prizes for idiots who can't play real golf...like me.

Ben, don't even waste your time. Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics....

Posted by: fluffy at July 7, 2006 02:36
*************

come now fluffy "everything" well some things but not "everything"

I think if 200 people want to get together and put up $400 each ( $80,000 ) to play some miniature golf for $20,000 first prize, etc. I think all the 200 people have a right to do that. and they can do it without sending $10,000 tax money up to the Professional Golf Tour Prize money fund for Gold Masters. And with good planning maybe they can distribute $75,000 of the $80,000 collected. without the organizer extracing a large tax for expenses in organizing the event.

if 200 people want to donate $400 for a poker contest they have a right to do it. they do it all the time in Las Vegas where they hold a world series of poker championship every year. they hold local poker tournaments with most of the money going back to the participants all over the country. this money is put up by many who are new to poker.

But for some reason the under 2000, 1800, 1600 etc crowd in chess is not allowed to do that without substational tax money being levied and sent up to the so called professionals.

Meanwhile the Professionals at the top who receive this money are angry that the lower rated players at the bottom are given some of their entry money back in so called prize money. all under the "moral" excuse that it encourages them to "cheat"

Lastly fluffy you complain about other people not giving their name. and you do not give your name. you also hide behind an anonymous handle called fluffy. I think at least on this one posting where you make this claim that you should have signed with your real name.

However, I strongly agree with your advice to Ben to not argue on the internet.

the statement that big money is a cause of cheating misses the point. the real point is that

if you are alive and breathing then there is a danger you might commit a crime and therefore you need to be put in jail for the rest of your life. after all you have a fatal weakness. you are alive.

to Ben I would like to say with respect to your very nice wife. there are 2 schools of thought. she can play always in the open sections thus playing people much higher rated than her. but she might try the approach of playing people who are rated higher than her but closer rated thus giving her more opportunities to win. and also laying a solid groundwork of chess ability in beating people rated about at her rating level.

I am not so sure that being rated about 1600 the best way to improve is playing grandmasters all the time. nothing wrong with playing some other 1600, 1700, 1800 players and some 1500 and 1400 players to make sure you have a solid chess understanding before playing grandmasters.

Some players at the 1600 level and below might think it is kind of an elitest attitude that she reserves herself to play only grandmasters. or maybe it is pressure from her husband to play only in the open section.
Posted by: cholula at July 7, 2006 11:33

Good points, choula. Fluffy isn't truly anonymous, though, he has often posted here and made his identity known (i.e., IM David Vigorito).

The abrupt and flippant tone adopted by both Fluffy and Ben Finegold when denouncing big prizes for "pussies", suggests to me that they actually may be aware of the holes in their own argument (as pointed out by choula and a few earlier commenters, including my own sometime nemesis, tgg). Rather than arguing an intellectually defensible case, the two IMs may be fully aware they are simply venting emotions such as frustration at their own failure to progress still further up the chess ladder.

If taken at face value, Finegold and Fluffy's argument resembles that of a street beggar with outstretched hand who, when given $1 by a charitable passer-by, responds, "The minimum donation is $2."

These IMs have a sense of personal entitlement. They want to get paid without having to earn it (by finishing not just high on the wall chart, but VERY high). While we "pussies" are the ones supporting them with our entry fees, they feel they "deserve" even more, so they try to guilt-trip us for not giving them a still larger handout (i.e. a larger share of our entry-fee-funded prize funds).

Viewed in this light, chesstraveler's suggestion that Ben look for work driving a taxi or serving fries at a Burger King may be too kind. It seems that a place on the welfare rolls is what Messrs. Vigorito and Finegold really are seeking.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 7, 2006 12:01

I don't like getting into online arguments. I especially don't like arguing with people I want to like. However, one of Ben Finegold's posts in this thread is so riddled with inaccuracies and misinformation that I have no choice but to respond.

Mr. Finegold's comments will be marked with his name and quotation marks.

[Ben Finegold] "The Open section has the most players, so I do not see the lower sections "subsidizing" the Open section."

The Open section of a CCA tournament NEVER (as in never, never ever) has the most players. And it certainly never has the most paid entries. Usually, the U2000 or U1800 sections are largest, and this tournament was no exception.

[Ben Finegold] "I know quite a bit about the "cheating" situations in the World Open, and for a floor director to assert the "correct" decisions were made in the cases mentioned is a very odd statement. Nobody points out there was probably a lot of cheating that was not suspected, as if the TWO cases discussed here were the ONLY ones in the entire event and everyone was "caught.""

First, whatever Finegold knows about the Rosenberg and Varshavsky situations at the World Open is second-hand, at the very best. He wasn't present for any of the deliberations on either player. He wasn't present for the Varshavsky searches or the Rosenberg discussions with Bill Goichberg. He wasn't part of the decisions to search Varshavsky twice or to forfeit Rosenberg. I was involved in all of these, so I have much more standing than he does to comment on both. (BTW, I'm an NTD, so it's not like I'm a club-level TD who's never seen a big event before. Nor is this my first World Open.)

That Ben Finegold has the temerity to comment on these as though he has first-hand knowledge is inaccurate and arrogant, at the very best.

Yes, I assert that the CCA made the correct decisions in both cases. Nowhere did I state or imply that these were the only two cases of suspected cheating at the World Open. However, these were the only two such situations in the tournament where sufficient evidence was available to act on the suspicions in any way. TDs at the World Open receive reports of suspected cheats like the FBI receives death threats on the President.

[Ben Finegold] "One poster wrote that the World Open and possibly the Chicago Open are the only events that offer ridiculous prizes to weak players. I think there are a few more events where weak players can win thousands."

I love the paraphrasing. He's quoting from my same post, only throwing in disparaging terms where it's convenient for him. I thought you had more integrity than this, sir.

The World Open is, by far and away, the only event where class players can win five-figure checks. The Chicago Open is the next biggest event in terms of class prizes, and very few events (National Open, etc.) come close to even the Chicago Open. This is simple truth, and if you don't get that...well, that's a personal problem.

There are a lot of people stating that class players don't deserve to win the prizes they do at the World Open. Quick question: Why not? It's money coming from their entry fees, isn't it? It's not like an IM paying an entry fee has some of his money going toward the winner of the U1400.

It's hard to believe how out of touch even players like Finegold are. (To be fair to him, he's far from the only pro who has the views he has.) Believe me, the pros who are complaining now would cry in their beers if the Open sections had to take their prizes entirely from their own entry fees.

Go back to this year's World Open crosstable, and assume every player in the Open section paid the on-site entry fee (which is obviously not true). Calculate how much money is there using this maxed-out estimate. Then, try to pay out the prizes Goichberg paid out after the last round for Open players from that total. Good luck with that!
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 7, 2006 12:10

Cholula and Jon Jacobs have hit the nail on the head. Finally, after all the insults, inaccurate comments, and pouting, we have two people who see the "prize problem" for what it is. Thank you both for the clear analogies that put Mr. Finegold's condescending rants in perspective.
Posted by: stendec at July 7, 2006 12:52

Boyd Reed NATIONAL (not club) TD is the essance of why chess is in trouble. He is the last bastion to integrety and defends the money making organizers. So Mr NTD, how much did you make at the World Open for your directing expertise? probably more than most here realize. But you have an objective opinion, after all you are an NTD!!!. BEYOND REPROACH!
You and your likes have discouraged away many players. I know many ex-tournament players that have had it with your arrogance. Your policing skills need upgrading, and you are not stopping the cheating. Even well funded casinos struggle to stay on top of the professional cheats. The CCA is not capable. The CCA is to chess what the USFL was to Football.
Posted by: unCommon Sense at July 7, 2006 13:01

John Jacobs,
Read Ben's posts again (I just did). No where did he call anyone derrogatory names. Unless all of a sudden calling someone a 'weak' or 'terrible' chess player is a insult. Most of us here call ourselves weak or terrible players.
As for fluffy, he called you guys 'pussies' only for attacking Ben. That's it! I wanted to call you guys something worse, but I refuse to stoop to your levels.
I dont necessarily agree with Ben's theories, but I can say that without insulting him or falsely accusing him of attacking us.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 13:03

FWIW, the prospects of a big prize are what drew me to travel from South Carolina to play in the U1600 section. The financial side didn't work out as I hoped (I finished 6-3 after a couple of appalling errors), but I had a great experience anyway. I didn't mind subsidizing (to a moderate extent) the prizes in the Open section, because a lot of the players there autographed my kids' roll-up boards. Of the 15 GMs, WGMs, and other notables I approached, only one was curmudgeonly and refused to sign. Many of them won very little in $$, yet they were very gracious to this patzer. All in all, I think the economics worked out about right for everyone (hopefully this includes the entrepreneur who took more risk than anyone, Bill Goichberg). I should mention a conversation I had with a friend who is father to an 11 year-old in the U1200 section. He said that he saw several kids in the section looking to adults (perhaps parents) for signals on how to move at crucial junctures in their games. I urged him to talk to a TD, since the opponents might not be aware of the problem in order to complain. So yes, there was more cheating going on than just the 2 cases mentioned earlier in this thread. OTOH, I have heard credible complaints of similar cheating at scholastic events where only trophies and pride were on the line, so I'm inclined to discount Finegold's argument somewhat. Perhaps a little more cheating (per capita) would occur at the World Open than at a Columbia, SC scholastic tournament, but that does not outweigh, in my mind, the incredible atmosphere and opportunities that a patzer like me can enjoy at a tournament like the World Open.
Posted by: Chris Falter at July 7, 2006 13:25

I believe this is my first post and I am very sorry that it had to come in this forum. I share the feelings and opinions of John Bartholomew. I will try not to beat the dead horse. I will give a more detailed post later because there is significant misinformation being spouted and I wanted to give my take on it. I was one of the lucky ones who Varshavsky and was "defeated." I feel I can at least provide my insight on the matter. This incident reminds me of what I read in Chess Chow about the famous story from the World Open at least 10 years ago about Jon Von Neuman - I might have the wrong spelling where he was thrown out I believe for cheating. The funny thing about that story was the guy could not even solve a simple Mate in 2. If memory serves correctly, the consensus was that the guy didnt even know how to play chess. But thats another story entirely.

Here are some basic facts and my observations(and again I apologize for not going into more detail now but I will give a detailed post on the situation).

1. Varashavsky always showed up late to the round (against me it was 20 minutes).
2. He used about 1 hour for the rest of the game after arriving late against me.
3. Against me (and against some others) Varashavsky never got up from the board except 1 time to stretch - not even a bathroom break.
4. I never saw him blink. His head never moved.
5. He had trouble notating - he must have taken at least 7 seconds to notate every move - often more, looking at the letters and numbers back and forth as he wrote each move.
6. He played moves that were very odd at times and yet matched Fritz (the best was in my game in a position where all the good players play a certain move; this guy plays a move that is a mistake because it loses a critical tempo, but yet on Fritz at least, it was the number 1 recommended move by Fritz. Yes the computer does suggest bad moves.
7. I was not struck as much by the strength of the guys moves, but rather the speed with which certain decisions were made - it felt funny during the game. I was surprised that he made certain decisions quickly. I have to confess however it was not one of my better games.
8. He lost a piece in the opening in Round 6 in 10 moves or so and then after 20 moves or so demanded that the director declare the game a draw! Why - I have no idea.
9. Varashavsky was searched only on Tuesday morning (Round 8) - not after his game with Smirin in Round 7). When he was searched, he said he had to go to the bathroom and didnt emerge for at least 30 minutes. Varashavshy was not kicked out of the tournament nor was he forfeited. He played Rounds 2-9 (took a bye in round 1)
10. He then proceeded to play the same exact opening against Najer that he played against Kacheishvili, except he decided not to place his Bishop on e3 (see Bartholomew posting for more details) and then proceeded to be lost 10 moves later. The guy even played on down a queen!
11. One of the directors on staff told me he had done the same thing in the North American Open this past year, and it involved an ear piece.
12. Another player complained he did something similar in the National Chess Congres in Philly (mabe 1.5 years ago).
13. GM Larry Christiansen fed the game with Smirin into Shredder and it matched Varshavsky's moves for 23 straight moves!
14. GM Larry Christiansen told me the pawn supposedly dropped by the guy against Bartholomew - Shredder actually liked! Shredder matched most of Varshavsky's moves as well
15. Varshavsky lost Rounds 8 and 9 when he was not allowed to wear his hat. He wore his hat in all other rounds.
16. Varshavshy looked around alot during rounds 8 and 9 - what I will call the "guilty eyes."
17. Varashavsky walked around numerous times during Rounds 8 and 9 (and yet never did in his other games).

I could go on and on, but you get the point. I will try to put something very detailed together that analyzes the games of this guy and where Shredder and Fritz follow.

Again, I hate to have to write this - this is one of many reasons why chess doesnt get sponsorship - but again thats another topic. Its a black mark against chess.

I will let others judge the above and hopefully others will come forward and provide game scores and share their experiences. I really hope substantial action is taken in this matter. Thanks for the opportunity to post.

Robby Adamson
Posted by: Robby Adamson at July 7, 2006 13:44

I believe this is my first post and I am very sorry that it had to come in this forum. I share the feelings and opinions of John Bartholomew. I will try not to beat the dead horse. I will give a more detailed post later because there is significant misinformation being spouted and I wanted to give my take on it. I was one of the lucky ones who Varshavsky and was "defeated." I feel I can at least provide my insight on the matter. This incident reminds me of what I read in Chess Chow about the famous story from the World Open at least 10 years ago about Jon Von Neuman - I might have the wrong spelling where he was thrown out I believe for cheating. The funny thing about that story was the guy could not even solve a simple Mate in 2. If memory serves correctly, the consensus was that the guy didnt even know how to play chess. But thats another story entirely.

Here are some basic facts and my observations(and again I apologize for not going into more detail now but I will give a detailed post on the situation).

1. Varashavsky always showed up late to the round (against me it was 20 minutes).
2. He used about 1 hour for the rest of the game after arriving late against me.
3. Against me (and against some others) Varashavsky never got up from the board except 1 time to stretch - not even a bathroom break.
4. I never saw him blink. His head never moved.
5. He had trouble notating - he must have taken at least 7 seconds to notate every move - often more, looking at the letters and numbers back and forth as he wrote each move.
6. He played moves that were very odd at times and yet matched Fritz (the best was in my game in a position where all the good players play a certain move; this guy plays a move that is a mistake because it loses a critical tempo, but yet on Fritz at least, it was the number 1 recommended move by Fritz. Yes the computer does suggest bad moves.
7. I was not struck as much by the strength of the guys moves, but rather the speed with which certain decisions were made - it felt funny during the game. I was surprised that he made certain decisions quickly. I have to confess however it was not one of my better games.
8. He lost a piece in the opening in Round 6 in 10 moves or so and then after 20 moves or so demanded that the director declare the game a draw! Why - I have no idea.
9. Varashavsky was searched only on Tuesday morning (Round 8) - not after his game with Smirin in Round 7). When he was searched, he said he had to go to the bathroom and didnt emerge for at least 30 minutes. Varashavshy was not kicked out of the tournament nor was he forfeited. He played Rounds 2-9 (took a bye in round 1)
10. He then proceeded to play the same exact opening against Najer that he played against Kacheishvili, except he decided not to place his Bishop on e3 (see Bartholomew posting for more details) and then proceeded to be lost 10 moves later. The guy even played on down a queen!
11. One of the directors on staff told me he had done the same thing in the North American Open this past year, and it involved an ear piece.
12. Another player complained he did something similar in the National Chess Congres in Philly (mabe 1.5 years ago).
13. GM Larry Christiansen fed the game with Smirin into Shredder and it matched Varshavsky's moves for 23 straight moves!
14. GM Larry Christiansen told me the pawn supposedly dropped by the guy against Bartholomew - Shredder actually liked! Shredder matched most of Varshavsky's moves as well
15. Varshavsky lost Rounds 8 and 9 when he was not allowed to wear his hat. He wore his hat in all other rounds.
16. Varshavshy looked around alot during rounds 8 and 9 - what I will call the "guilty eyes."
17. Varashavsky walked around numerous times during Rounds 8 and 9 (and yet never did in his other games).

I could go on and on, but you get the point. I will try to put something very detailed together that analyzes the games of this guy and where Shredder and Fritz follow.

Again, I hate to have to write this - this is one of many reasons why chess doesnt get sponsorship - but again thats another topic. Its a black mark against chess.

I will let others judge the above and hopefully others will come forward and provide game scores and share their experiences. I really hope substantial action is taken in this matter. Thanks for the opportunity to post.

Robby Adamson
Posted by: Robby Adamson at July 7, 2006 13:47

When a big International Tournament is held in Europe the organizers walk around and they are people who have helped to find sponsorship money for the prize funds. the top players probably get appearance fees. the class players probably pay a low entry fee as someone here stated.

At almost all tournaments in USA the organizer stands there as an entrepreneur hoping to make a profit. he did not raise any money for sponsorhip in most cases. all the money is coming from the players. the organizer has arranged what he believes will be a profitable redistribution of all of the income. Profitable in the sense that he hopes a good chunk is put into his own pocket.

I dont really know how much money Goichberg profits on the world open but I can guess it is in the range of $100,000 for this one tournament. more than most people make in a year. so whereas a sponsor at Corus might have donated several $100,000 to the tournament. in this case the TD profits $100,000 into his own pocket.

someone above said the way they are run in usa is a big part of the problem. Well when is the USCF going to find sponsors. Maybe never if the President of the USCF has a vested interest in making a profit out of tournaments. I can only guess that one of the goals of the present president of the uscf is to consolidate the profits that the organizers make. to make sure that the profits are institutionalized and supported by the uscf mother organization.

What chess in the usa really needs is corporate sponsorship. more people like the AF4C who are trying very hard to support chess in usa. but we need to have the leadership of uscf have corporate sponsorship as their number one goal before we are going to see much change on the local scene.

for now chess players live off the money from other chess players. there is no outside money coming into chess. that means basically that everyone is losing as expenses are paid and profits are drained off the tournaments by the TD's.

The leadership to change things must come from the top. the uscf and the top grandmasters must begin to work for corporate sponsorship. and we have to stop looking to bessel kok to solve our sponsorship problems. we have to get off our rump and do it ourself.

A new day will dawn when the uscf president and the td of world open bill goichberg announces that he has corporate sponsorship that will be donating $100,000 to the prize fund of the world open over and above the entry fees.

certainly there must be some company in usa that would love to see the name changed to the Intel World Open for only $100,000. or the coka cola world open or whatever. that is what golf does and it get millions.

I used the name Intel because Intel wanted to support chess but chess was not willing to support Intel. or at least Kasparov was not willing. Kasparov really hurt chess throwing away Intel. but the uscf should be over at intel corporate offices right now trying to fix things up.

and what is the cause of this fighting between those higher rated and those down in the trenches. well ask IM's like fluffy how many close personal friend does he have who are rated 1400. and ask all your 1400 friends how many close personal friendships do they have with IM's or above. not financial arrangements where the 1400 pays for lessons. those do not count.

lets face it. an IM like fluffy and Finegold would not be caught dead with a 1400 player as a friend. Finegold will not even allow his wife to play in her class. he makes her play in the open section. I can imagine how many 1600 rated friends Ben Finegold has. His wife is probably not allowed to have friends at 1600. she has to have all her friends at the IM and GM level. as if somehow that is going to make her a better player and a better person. she needs to be just who she is. not someone different.

by the way Ben you and your wife drove 600 miles to the world open and did not bring a chess set and clock. I would hope by now that you own a chess set and a clock. I thought all tournament players owned a chess set and a clock. you and your wife by your account enjoy playing chess and engage in many tournaments. I think each of you should own a chess set and a clock. I suggest you purchase one for the other as a birthday or wedding anniversary present. so when you arrive at a world open you will look like you know what you came for.
Posted by: cholula at July 7, 2006 13:54

All you people who are rational and can see the guilt, forget trying to prove it. You will always run in to these insane people who, know matter how much evidence you show them will continue to act as if you are the crazy one for not believing a 800-2100 player on any given day could beat 3 or 4 senior masters and a couple of world class GMs back to back. A few years ago Ali Mirafzali a terrible player could only manage 3.5 out of 9 the under 1400. One year later in the 2002 plays up in the under 1600 section and goes 8.5 out of 9 giving a pity draw in the last round. He is a known computer chess specialist. I know for a FACT that he used a computer but no one would listen, just claiming that this weak bum just was having a good day. The truth is YOU can't fix stupid! So stop trying convince people that Varshavsky and Rosenberg Cheated. Sure Varshavsky can beat Smirin, sure, Rosenberg, a life long suck player can win 19 straight torunament games before the world open(yes that is sarcasm - I know some of the readers here need help).
Posted by: Gman at July 7, 2006 14:15

You guys just wont be satisfied until you've insulted and ran off every chess celebrity who visits this board....
Mig, Shirov, Finegold, Nakamura, Vigorito, Polgar, Shahade(s), Yermolinsky (who is the only one who actually deserved it) and of course the anti-Christ himself: Kasparov.

Nice job. It's no wonder why I rarely play chess anymore.
Posted by: Tony West at July 7, 2006 14:16

Robby, thanks for providing your info and your impressions.

The Varshavsky incidents demonstrate that no matter how rare the illegal use of computer help (or, for that matter, human help) may be, it is nevertheless a problem that organizers must begin to address in a more pro-active manner.

Please take a look at the open letter that was sent to the USCF leadership some 7 months ago, signed by a handful of chess educators and players (www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com).

That open letter / petition was inspired by similar incidents last year in class sections of the HB Global and World Open. (Both involved the same player, who fled the HB after floor TDs suspected him of receiving moves via cell-phone, then went on to win his section of the World Open and collected a $5,800 prize.)

I plan on updating that Web site soon, adding details of these World Open incidents, and making a direct appeal for public comments and expressions of support.

And no, my anti-cheating Web site update/upgrade won't benefit from the services of a $50,000 consultant, nor will it be run by an IM who can melt chocolate by looking at it.

The Varshavsky incident does indeed resemble the "John Von Neumann" incident of several years ago. In fact I have collected data on about 10 other incidents over the years, in which cheaters were caught after winning (or being on the verge of winning) substantial prizes.

Reviewing details of each such incident, I had the impression the cheaters were NOT trying to avoid detection, but were doing everything they could to GET caught. Conspicuously out-of-the-ordinary behavior, such as going to the bathroom on each move, constantly talking on a cell phone during play, "von Neumann" with his obviously intentional tell-tale handle and his dreadlocks and his refusal (or inability) to choose even a single move on his own, even when the computer was transmitting illegal moves to him (he ended up losing a game on time by ceasing to make moves after move 15 or so).

While a class player who beats GMs is obviously going to get the intention, the nightmare scenario I perceive is this: A team of professional criminals enter a big-money event with multiple class sections (like the World Open). They enter one person in each section, equipped with miniature wireless audio receivers. One or two accomplices sit in a hotel room at a computer, and send them moves via audio -- EVERY MOVE OF EVERY GAME. Of course the "players" would need a way of letting the accomplice(s) know the moves their opponents played; but that shouldn't be hard, especially in the Age of MonRoi.

A well-organized "team" of cheaters like this could expect to take the 1st prize in EVERY class section they entered. For the World Open, that would have been a $150,000 take, if the "based on 1,800 entries" prize amounts had been met (actual prizes were greatly reduced because the turnout only reached about 1,300). That doesn't even include the Open section, which criminals might steer clear of for fear of attracting unwanted attention (not to mention the risk that a 2700-plus GM might get lucky and upset their software in one game).
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 7, 2006 14:25

Mr. Finegold -

Astute professionals in several sports have learned that enthusiastic amateurs are their best supporters .. they call them fans. And rather than denigrate them as players, they cater to their desires to be part of the world of that particular sport. The result is a nice win-win .. the fans have fun, the pro's earn money.

In chess, class players pay hefty entry fees to enjoy the chess fantasy that a big money swiss system tournament provides. They willingly allow a portion of their entry fees to be used to subsidize the open section prizes ... because they enjoy seeing a big turnout of GM's & IM's. It adds to the intense chess atmosphere, which is why the amateurs are there. They like the dream of winning big $$$'s themselves, the intensity of the competition, the motivitation of preparing for the event, and seeing really good players up close.

Mr Finegold should be delighted with this format. He should make it a personal goal to persuade 20 additional class players to enter the 2007 WO. He should encourage all of his IM and GM buddies to do the same. He should tell those class players that it's an awesome chess experience. He should offer to introduce them to the stars of the game, who they may only have read about. He should offer to do a WO training session for them (for a fee of course). He should invite them to sit in on the post-mortems of his games. Perhaps some will want to become his long term students. And if playing for big bucks in a chess tourney is what excites them, he should applaud their enthusiasm.

The amateur players are the ones buying the books, reading the magazine articles, listening to Chess.FM. To be a pro, you have to get paid. And the amateurs are the one's doing the paying. Remember, that GM ambience at the WO could be created in other ways, for a lot less than the $80,000 of open section prizes. You could get your wish ... the entire open section could be replaced by 3 or 4 popular GM's being paid attractive fees ($5,000 - $10,000) to mix and mingle with the class players. That would insure that no participating GMs went home with less than some of the amateurs. What do you think Ben?
Posted by: RP at July 7, 2006 14:36

Mr. Finegold -

Astute professionals in several sports have learned that enthusiastic amateurs are their best supporters .. they call them fans. And rather than denigrate them as players, they cater to their desires to be part of the world of that particular sport. The result is a nice win-win .. the fans have fun, the pro's earn money.

In chess, class players pay hefty entry fees to enjoy the chess fantasy that a big money swiss system tournament provides. They willingly allow a portion of their entry fees to be used to subsidize the open section prizes ... because they enjoy seeing a big turnout of GM's & IM's. It adds to the intense chess atmosphere, which is why the amateurs are there. They like the dream of winning big $$$'s themselves, the intensity of the competition, the motivitation of preparing for the event, and seeing really good players up close.

Mr Finegold should be delighted with this format. He should make it a personal goal to persuade 20 additional class players to enter the 2007 WO. He should encourage all of his IM and GM buddies to do the same. He should tell those class players that it's an awesome chess experience. He should offer to introduce them to the stars of the game, who they may only have read about. He should offer to do a WO training session for them (for a fee of course). He should invite them to sit in on the post-mortems of his games. Perhaps some will want to become his long term students. And if playing for big bucks in a chess tourney is what excites them, he should applaud their enthusiasm.

The amateur players are the ones buying the books, reading the magazine articles, listening to Chess.FM. To be a pro, you have to get paid. And the amateurs are the one's doing the paying. Remember, that GM ambience at the WO could be created in other ways, for a lot less than the $80,000 of open section prizes. You could get your wish ... the entire open section could be replaced by 3 or 4 popular GM's being paid attractive fees ($5,000 - $10,000) to mix and mingle with the class players. That would insure that no participating GMs went home with less than some of the amateurs. What do you think Ben?
Posted by: RP at July 7, 2006 14:37

Mr. Finegold -

Astute professionals in several sports have learned that enthusiastic amateurs are their best supporters .. they call them fans. And rather than denigrate them as players, they cater to their desires to be part of the world of that particular sport. The result is a nice win-win .. the fans have fun, the pro's earn money.

In chess, class players pay hefty entry fees to enjoy the chess fantasy that a big money swiss system tournament provides. They willingly allow a portion of their entry fees to be used to subsidize the open section prizes ... because they enjoy seeing a big turnout of GM's & IM's. It adds to the intense chess atmosphere, which is why the amateurs are there. They like the dream of winning big $$$'s themselves, the intensity of the competition, the motivitation of preparing for the event, and seeing really good players up close.

Mr Finegold should be delighted with this format. He should make it a personal goal to persuade 20 additional class players to enter the 2007 WO. He should encourage all of his IM and GM buddies to do the same. He should tell those class players that it's an awesome chess experience. He should offer to introduce them to the stars of the game, who they may only have read about. He should offer to do a WO training session for them (for a fee of course). He should invite them to sit in on the post-mortems of his games. Perhaps some will want to become his long term students. And if playing for big bucks in a chess tourney is what excites them, he should applaud their enthusiasm.

The amateur players are the ones buying the books, reading the magazine articles, listening to Chess.FM. To be a pro, you have to get paid. And the amateurs are the one's doing the paying. Remember, that GM ambience at the WO could be created in other ways, for a lot less than the $80,000 of open section prizes. You could get your wish ... the entire open section could be replaced by 3 or 4 popular GM's being paid attractive fees ($5,000 - $10,000) to mix and mingle with the class players. That would insure that no participating GMs went home with less than some of the amateurs. What do you think Ben?
Posted by: RP at July 7, 2006 14:38

First, let me say that I am one of the "patzers" (I am 1900) and I don't have a problem with some of my entry fees going towards the Open section. I too agree that having titled players is good for the tournament. But there IS most definitely a difference when GMs do not have to pay entry fees and only get "deducted," than having to pay up to $400 to enter an event. This also, I do not have a problem with (though I know many 2300-2400 players who do).

Class players SHOULD be entitled to large prizes, because it is their entry fees that create those prizes! Pretend for a moment that the World Open or whatever tournament did not have an Open Section. There would still be almost 1100 people who paid up to $400 to play in the event--should the titled players get that money THEN? Of course not, if they are not playing! I see very little difference, then, if class players get that money when GMs are playing, especially since it can CLEARLY be shown that class-player money goes into the Open Section.

I enjoy IM Vigorito's lectures on ChessLecture.com, but his and IM Finegold's comments disappoint me greatly. In the absence of sponsorship for tournaments in the USA (another issue altogether), prize funds must come from entries. Naturally, there are A LOT more class players than titled players, and with this structure these players AS A GROUP are ENTITLED to earn more than the titled players. In fact, the Open Section had the biggest prizes of all! I know many GMs who play in the New York area, and I must say that they are generally courteous people. Of the winners that I personally know, GMs Kamsky, Yudasin, Benjamin, Wojtkiewicz, Ibragimov, and Ehlvest don't seem to be elitist. The other GM winners I don't know well enough to comment upon.

Like Boyd, I was also a TD at this year's World Open (unfortunately I am only a Senior TD): I was the Chief TD of the Under 1400 section and ran the computer there. And yes, there were a couple of incidents in my section also (not as serious as those in the Open and U2000), and we handled those. And Boyd is right about complaints about players: the winner of my section (who went 8.5/9 and won $10,750) we received an anonymous call about saying he is Expert/Master level! The last three rounds we conducted research, and could find nothing on him, as far I know. I will say also that we research all big prizewinners for any inconsistencies in rating and do our best to react accordingly. Is it possible to catch all cheaters? In all honesty, probably not. But we TDs give 150% in trying to do so. A lot of the effort TDs put in to try to deal with cheating is never seen by the players.

unCommon raises the issues of what TDs get paid to direct such events. People seem to believe that since the profit potential for such events is so huge for the organizer that TDs make a ton of money. I also used to believe this. PLEASE understand, there is an OCEAN of difference between what the Organizer makes and what the TDs make!!! I worked the last 5 days of the event (I did not work the first 2 days of the 7-day schedule), and after putting in 5 straight 15-16 hour days, I will tell you that I was paid little more (hourly) than someone in a "Burger King" would be paid. Why do I do it then? I enjoy being a tournament director, and continually try to get better. I plan to play in (and direct in if given the opportunity) more CCA events in the future. In chess I have never experienced anything like the atmosphere there.

Andre Harding
Posted by: Andre Harding at July 7, 2006 14:50

Before I start this, I should state that I've worked for Bill Goichberg as a floor TD in the past. He's not a bad person to work for, but he definitely has his personal priorities about what makes for a good tournament; for me, it felt like more like an assembly line churning out chess games than a chess tournament, but that's just me.

For those that don't approve of how he organizes and runs tournaments--especially with the prize funds--why do you still play at CCA tournaments? Every time you pay an entry fee, you're financially supporting his view of how a tournament should be run. If enough people who dislike his prize structures (for instance) stay away from his tournaments so that his bottom line takes a hit, I can guarantee you he'll be much more attentive to suggestions. Any organizer would.

Speaking of organizers, I urge those of you who have your own prize structures and entry fee limits to go and organize tournaments. The US chess scene can always use more prominent tournaments. I wish you good luck--it's hard to break even money-wise when running tournaments.

I'm curious about the people advocating corp sponsorship for open tournaments like the World Open. If we can't even secure sponsorship for the US Championship, why would a sponsor even bother with an Open, where any idiot with an entry fee can play?
Posted by: cynical at July 7, 2006 14:54

All you people who are rational and can see the guilt, forget trying to prove it. You will always run in to these insane people who, know matter how much evidence you show them will continue to act as if you are the crazy one for not believing a 800-2100 player on any given day could beat 3 or 4 senior masters and a couple of world class GMs back to back. A few years ago Ali Mirafzali a terrible player could only manage 3.5 out of 9 the under 1400 at the 2001 World Open. One year later in the 2002 he plays UP A SECTION in the under 1600 section and goes 8.5!! out of 9 giving a pity draw in the last round. He is a known computer chess specialist. I know for a FACT that he used a computer but no one would listen, people just kept claiming that this weak bum just was having a good day, and that anyone who would claim he cheated was obviously not thinking clearly. Goichberg just paid him out the 10 Gs like nothing. The truth is YOU can't fix stupid! So stop trying convince people that Varshavsky and Rosenberg Cheated. Sure Varshavsky can beat Smirin, sure, Rosenberg, a life long suck player can win 19 straight tournament games before the world open(yes that is sarcasm - I know some of the readers here need help).
More productive what should the punishment be, the USCF should at least ban Rosenberg for life. You supporters of Rosenberg after all know that Rosenberg USCF ID # 12480813 who has no hearing loss whatsoever, just wears not hearing aids, but transmitting devices in his ear to be stylish, it’s all the fashion rage you know.
Posted by: Gman at July 7, 2006 15:09

cholula: fyi, nobody cares how many patzer friends you "imagine" IM Finegold has, and nobody cares why you think his wife plays in the Open section. what's your problem?
Posted by: Puzzled Pawn at July 7, 2006 15:11

All you people who are rational and can see the guilt, forget trying to prove it. You will always run in to these insane people who, know matter how much evidence you show them will continue to act as if you are the crazy one for not believing a 800-2100 player on any given day could beat 3 or 4 senior masters and a couple of world class GMs back to back. A few years ago Ali Mirafzali a terrible player could only manage 3.5 out of 9 the under 1400 at the 2001 World Open. One year later in the 2002 he plays UP A SECTION in the under 1600 section and goes 8.5!! out of 9 giving a pity draw in the last round. He is a known computer chess specialist. I know for a FACT that he used a computer but no one would listen, people just kept claiming that this weak bum just was having a good day, and that anyone who would claim he cheated was obviously not thinking clearly. Goichberg just paid him out the 10 Gs like nothing. The truth is YOU can't fix stupid! So stop trying convince people that Varshavsky and Rosenberg Cheated. Sure Varshavsky can beat Smirin, sure, Rosenberg, a life long suck player can win 19 straight tournament games before the world open(yes that is sarcasm - I know some of the readers here need help).
More productive what should the punishment be, the USCF should at least ban Rosenberg for life. You supporters of Rosenberg after all know that Rosenberg USCF ID # 12480813 who has no hearing loss whatsoever, just wears not hearing aids, but transmitting devices in his ear to be stylish, it’s all the fashion rage you know.
Posted by: GMan at July 7, 2006 15:16

(The following is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, and should NOT be taken seriously. I would think that the content would speak for itself, but the interaction between Der Strudel and Mr X...)

There's been a lot of ranting about low-level players taking home a lot of dough by winning a section, while titled players get (relative) chump change. The numbers most frequently referred to (I believe) were that the nine co-winners of the Open section picked up a bit over $6000 each, whereas the clear winner of the U1400 section got more than $10,000.

And therein lies the problem: co-winners vs. clear winner.

If there had been a clear winner in the Open, what would he have won? Well over $28,000. And if nine people had tied for first in U1400? Between $2500 and $3000. (Use a World Open flier, and assume 1300 paid entries--I worked off 1260; 70% of advertised was easier to calculate.)

I'm sure Ben and Dave would be less likely to complain about exorbitant class prizes if first place in U1400 only took home a measly two or three grand, right?

So, what's the solution? Well, what causes the massive ties for first in the Open section? Draws, of course--whether perfunctory or hard-fought, right? The more draws, the more likely the final winning score will be lower...and the more people who can end up tying for first.

I think it's clear: us patzers need to start drawing more. Play ten to fifteen moves, equalize as black into an even middlegame, and offer a draw. This way, we can save our energy for the next round--not to mention playing blitz and bughouse all night. If two 2700s decide that it's not worth beating up each other for that extra half point, why should two 1300s? Or 1700s?

More patzer draws, I say! No more of this one clear winner, going 8-1/2 out of 9 crap. This way, more people get in on the wealth, and the masters getting spanked by the GMs won't be inclined to drool over our prize funds.

Take a draw, I say! Do it for all your fellow fish!
Posted by: cynical at July 7, 2006 15:26

To understand my point of view on this issue, I would please ask those of you who own Informant n. 81 (printed or CD) to go and look up game n° 87, Drazic-Scarenzio, Torino 2001.
First of all, please take my word on this (I remember a computer chess expert checking it out): after the end of the opening, ALL Black's moves were the first choice of the current version of Fritz. Some people shrugged this off saying Scarenzio had a lost position until shortly before the end, but this just shows that a strong GM, playing creatively, was still capable of getting a winning advantage against commercial software at that time (although converting that in practice was quite another matter even then, as Drazic found out to his cost).
The Black player joined his first event at the age of over 50 (!), playing like a third category player (1500/1600) most of the time. Then, in just a few years' time, his rating started to soar. It had already reached 2200 and was still growing steadily when his brilliant streak ended: about a year after the game I quoted, the arbiter in a French event found him with his hands in the pockets of his coat, one of which contained a version of Palm PC suited for blind people and equipped with Pocket Fritz. He had managed to turn it off just in time and so claimed he only used the device between games for analysis, but the arbiter apparently failed to believe him... After that he only ever showed up again at one rapid event, where he returned to playing at a 1500 level, scoring something like 1/8 and attributing his failure to the psychological strain caused by the unjust persecution he had received by the arbiters and chess media.
And yet many people defended this gentleman: even the Italian Chess Federation declined to take any action against him! Even more tellingly, only very few of his victims actually had any suspicions about him before he was caught, although later on, with hindsight, most of them agreed something fishy had been going on.
So I agree with Gman: stop trying to convince the entire universe that some people are trying to play dirty. This is not a criminal trial and we don't need 100% foolproof evidence, because we aren't sending anyone to jail. Just stick to common sense and experience, and if the organizers of big-money tournaments aren't sure they have both, they should appoint an independent and respected authority (at least IM strength as a player) to make judgements. If he/she says "cheater", then that player gets thrown out, and better luck next time.
Force participants who intend to take part in these super-Opens to sign a document beforehand, in which they renounce to make any claims on the arbiter's decisions on the matter of external assistance. If you think this is a little harsh, remember that otherwise people will just stop taking these tournaments seriously sooner or later.
Posted by: prugno at July 7, 2006 16:44

I just found this on the internet. in view of the discussion of money for the world open. I think everyone will love reading this short paragraph. If they can do it why can not all the smart intelligent people in chess do even better.

Warning!$1.1 Million in cash prize money in THE WORLD CARP CHAMPIONSHIP being held in Waddington, NY. Sponsored by the American Carp Society, it's the first time the World Carp Championship has been held in North America. There's a $100,000 cash prize for the team catching the most collective weight of carp. The big prize is $1 Million for catching a carp weighing more than 50 pounds 4 ounces.

it is about half way down on this page:

http://www.kesslerauctions.com/skinny_cooks/index.html
Posted by: tommy at July 7, 2006 18:23

I wonder how many of these posts would have been posted if there were a legal requirement that all blog posts have to be accompanied by a legal first and last name, along with city/state so as to prevent slander...

Kudos to those with the guts/decency to give their actual names. And no, I am not one of them! Cluck, cluck-cluck cluuccck!
Posted by: noyb at July 7, 2006 20:45

Yes, yes, it's mighty intrepid of "Ben" to openly declare all Under-2200s (probably ~95% of the readership here, and almost entirely casual players) as "terrible", and "bad". It's as though some lifetime Triple-A player informed players in a weekend softball league that they suck. Should a mass uprising surprise chessplayers, all of whom presumably can calculate one ply into the future?

Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 22:36

Wouldn't a post here count as libel?

Also, it's not easy to show harm done via posts in a place like this; if I remember my civil law, the plantiff's attorney has to demonstrate that the defendant's statement had a concrete deleterious effect on the plaintiff.

Even if someone like Gman were to use his real name, and Varshavsky and Rosenberg decided to pursue legal recourse against him:

1) They have to demonstrate that the statements were false. Varshavsky's better off than Rosenberg in this respect, as he was not removed from the tournament, as Rosenberg apparently was. While being pitched from the tournament in no way satisfies the legal standard of guilt, it doesn't look good.

2) Have those statements by Gman caused any harm to Varshavsky or Rosenberg, or show malicious intent? There are legal standards to satisfy in both cases, and competent counsel by the defense should be able to deal with anything opposing counsel comes upwith.
Posted by: cynical at July 7, 2006 22:47

Law regarding defamatory online postings is still being defined. The USCF has worried about just this issue in connection with their own "USCF Forums," which, like Dirt, is a "moderated" forum. They're worried that as the operator, they could be held liable for defamatory postings made by members of the public on their forum (the USCF, that is; for Dirt, it would be Mig on the hook).

There have been numerous cases of corporations suing, and winning, against ANONYMOUS online critics. How did they reach an anonymous online critic? Simple: the defamed corporation got a court to issue an order forcing the ISP or Website operator to divulge the real name and other information needed to identify the poster. Some of you do read a little about the real world outside of chess, don't you? Anyone heard of Grokster, Nutella, etc.? That wasn't defamation, but the legal and technical methods used to identify illegal file-sharers are the same ones used to penetrate the veil of anonymity that various corporate critics sought, unsuccessfully, to hide behind.

That said, I've never heard of a defamed INDIVIDUAL (as opposed to a corporation) suing to unmask someone who criticized them on a blog. Of course, just because I never heard of it, hardly means it didn't happen. I'm not even a lawyer.

While I'm on the subject, don't rely on uninformed guesswork when it comes to law; you'll end up sounding like a 1200-player annotating a GM game off-the-cuff. For instance, the very nature of libel (against an individual) is that the plaintiff has NO need at all to show any concrete "deleterious effect." The whole concept of libel / slander is that if a person's REPUTATION is harmed, then THEY are harmed. Period.

Nor must defamatory statements be accompanied by "malicious intent" to be actionable.

Finally, although a statement does have to be false to be libelous, in practice, defendants nearly always concede the falsity of their statements (even if true!), and instead rely on other defenses to escape liability. That's because seeking to prove the truth of your offending statements can be considered "re-publication of the libel"; if the jury rejects your proof, the re-publication will then furnish grounds for (greater) punitive damages. So, proving truth is considered excessively risky as a defense strategy, and is very rarely used.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 7, 2006 23:33

Law regarding defamatory online postings is still being defined. The USCF has worried about just this issue in connection with their own "USCF Forums," which, like Dirt, is a "moderated" forum. They're worried that as the operator, they could be held liable for defamatory postings made by members of the public on their forum (the USCF, that is; for Dirt, it would be Mig on the hook).

There have been numerous cases of corporations suing, and winning, against ANONYMOUS online critics. How did they reach an anonymous online critic? Simple: the defamed corporation got a court to issue an order forcing the ISP or Website operator to divulge the real name and other information needed to identify the poster. Some of you do read a little about the real world outside of chess, don't you? Anyone heard of Grokster, Nutella, etc.? That wasn't defamation, but the legal and technical methods used to identify illegal file-sharers are the same ones used to penetrate the veil of anonymity that various corporate critics sought, unsuccessfully, to hide behind.

That said, I've never heard of a defamed INDIVIDUAL (as opposed to a corporation) suing to unmask someone who criticized them on a blog. Of course, just because I never heard of it, hardly means it didn't happen. I'm not even a lawyer.

While I'm on the subject, don't rely on uninformed guesswork when it comes to law; you'll end up sounding like a 1200-player annotating a GM game off-the-cuff. For instance, the very nature of libel (against an individual) is that the plaintiff has NO need at all to show any concrete "deleterious effect." The whole concept of libel / slander is that if a person's REPUTATION is harmed, then THEY are harmed. Period.

Nor must defamatory statements be accompanied by "malicious intent" to be actionable.

Finally, although a statement does have to be false to be libelous, in practice, defendants nearly always concede the falsity of their statements (even if true!), and instead rely on other defenses to escape liability. That's because seeking to prove the truth of your offending statements can be considered "re-publication of the libel"; if the jury rejects your proof, the re-publication will then furnish grounds for (greater) punitive damages. So, proving truth is considered excessively risky as a defense strategy, and is very rarely used.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 7, 2006 23:35

I don't blame Ben Finegold for not hanging around with people u2200.. As this forum shows people under u2200 are just a bunch of losers.
Posted by: Jdawgs at July 7, 2006 23:56

People U2200 are not losers....just people who post 20+ times a day on a chess blog site.....let's see....this is my 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th post....whew!

Not that I have many friends (as you can tell from my posts, I am a lunatic)....but of the people I can remember off the top of my head...I guess 95% are chess players...and 70-80% are U2000....Those GMs can spot a lunatic a mile away...

Maybe I should stick to bridge....

Anonymous IM
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 00:03

Noun 1. arrogance - overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors. Also see Ben Finegold.

BTW: I thought you werent going to post anymore Skippy?
Posted by: U2200 at July 8, 2006 00:17

unCommon Sense - It's very easy to hide behind a psuedonym and bash people. I, on the other hand, have nothing to hide. Of course, if my posts made as little sense as yours, I suppose I'd make them under an assumed name, too.

If you can find someplace where I claimed to be above reproach, please feel free to provide the quote. However, despite your comments, I don't direct and organize chess tournaments for the money. At this year's World Open, I put in 5 days from 10am to 1am, and only one night did I get to stop long enough to eat dinner. Then, I had to struggle to get to sleep, because my legs and feet hurt so much. At the end of the tournament, I made maybe $9.50 an hour - and then drove four hours the day after to get home and go to work that evening.

Andre Harding makes an excellent point - TDs do a lot of work at the World Open to deter and detect cheating that players and spectators know nothing about. We are far from perfect - but if you think you can do better, become a TD and give it a try. Don't expect to make much money, though.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 8, 2006 00:36

unCommon Sense - It's very easy to hide behind a psuedonym and bash people. I, on the other hand, have nothing to hide. Of course, if my posts made as little sense as yours, I suppose I'd make them under an assumed name, too.

If you can find someplace where I claimed to be above reproach, please feel free to provide the quote. However, despite your comments, I don't direct and organize chess tournaments for the money. At this year's World Open, I put in 5 days from 10am to 1am, and only one night did I get to stop long enough to eat dinner. Then, I had to struggle to get to sleep, because my legs and feet hurt so much. At the end of the tournament, I made maybe $9.50 an hour - and then drove four hours the day after to get home and go to work that evening.

Andre Harding makes an excellent point - TDs do a lot of work at the World Open to deter and detect cheating that players and spectators know nothing about. We are far from perfect - but if you think you can do better, become a TD and give it a try. Don't expect to make much money, though.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 8, 2006 00:36

I was not posting, that was some anonymous IM.

BP Anonymous
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 01:21

There is no smoking gun in the Smirin game, but in Bartholemew-Varshavsky: 58...Rc7 is a very suspicious move. Question for Bartholemew: did you analyze 58...Kb5 59.Nxc5, and if so, how many ply were you able to go during the game?

Even if one sees 59.Nxc5, 59...a5 looks like a vert strong & natural (= "human") reply. The only moves that keeps White in the game is the "computer move" 60.Na6
Posted by: Bill Brock - Chicago at July 8, 2006 04:23

Hey Ben "you U2200s all suck" Finegold, you've got to clear your cache!
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 8, 2006 07:53

It seems we are unfamiliar with sarcasm....I shall close the register at this point and state 99 cents is the rental price --- quoth Comicbook Store Guy

Anonymous Columbus Open Participant

BP Random

(Yeah MIG, The IP is Columbus, OH....cause I drove to Columbus to play in the Columbus Open).
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 08:19

Bill:

I analysed the Smirin game and found black's moves, from move 11 on, to match Pocket Fritz' best moves 83% of the time.

First move match: 39/47

Second move match: 3/47

Nether 1st or 2nd move match: 5/47

Blacks moves therefore matched Fritz' first or second choice an incredible 89.3% of the time. Amazing.
Posted by: John J at July 8, 2006 10:44

First time on this newsgroup--the supporters of Steve Rosenberg have a major problem with their arguments. Why would Rosenberg have the hearing aid on his ear during the last round of the World Open where he was playing for 25 grand? The worst possible scenario that Steve had was to lose to Sevilla and win enough money to cover his expenses which many class players at that particular event are lucky to do. By many accounts, Rosenberg hovers from the high 1700's to the low 1900's so his past results could be justified. Why would he take such a ridiculous gamble because he knew that the heat was on him big time? Frankly, if I had that much heat on me because of the spector of cheating, I would make sure that there is no possibility of suspicion(hearing aid in the east river). The only answer that I can come up with at this time is that Steve cheated and got TOO greedy. I
Posted by: joe veal at July 8, 2006 12:20

Not to sound too sarcastic, maybe he had the hearing aid in his ear because he wanted to be able to hear?
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 8, 2006 13:59

Joe Veal:

Maybe, he really needed the hearing aid.
Posted by: peach at July 8, 2006 14:01

When someone like Ben Finegold comes on here and displays his arrogance he deserves what he gets. Ben, when you show the arrogance to attempt to correct the grammar of someone on this forum you should at least make sure you are correct. Yesterday Ben replied to this post by John:

"yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife."
Posted by: john | July 6, 2006 11:05 PM

Ben immediately replied with this comment:

"First, it is spelled "you're" not your."

Let me correct Ben Finegold. The correct word is "your" and John was correct. The word you're is a contraction which stands for "you are". Saying..."....and so does you are wife" is incorrect. The word "your" shows possession such as "your" book or "your" car or "your" rating, etc.....

So PLEASE.....Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.

Posted by: James at July 8, 2006 15:34

For the last time IT WAS NOT A HEARING AID!!! Goichberg read the writing on the device looked it up on the web and discovered that it was a miniature RADIO receiving device. Goichberg doesn't do anything unless he has to, he doesn't care enough about cheating that he would blemish his own tournament. He gets paid either way.
The available evidence was just so bold and blatant and the discovery of the producer of the radio transmission device was the last straw. So Goichberg reluctantly had to take action.
Posted by: Gman at July 8, 2006 17:20

Ahem... Of course Ben Finegold was right after all. He did not reply to the post James refers to. Let me quote the first sentence of Ben's post:

"Ok, ok... I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!"

This makes it very, very obvious about which post he was speaking. Except for our good friend James of course, who did not understand.

Let me help you out James: Ben was explaining that in Patzerjoe's sentence "Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold." the word "your" is not used properly.

So James, PLEASE... Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.
Posted by: Oscar at July 8, 2006 18:09

Dear Oscar, Thank you for correcting James! You beat me to the punch, thanx again. Kaliman

James, If you were a little more vigilant, you would realize that Finegold was replying to Patzer Joe and not john as you contend. Go back and check the times for yourself, thank you very much. Need I say more? Respectfully yours, Kaliman

James said,
When someone like Ben Finegold comes on here and displays his arrogance he deserves what he gets. Ben, when you show the arrogance to attempt to correct the grammar of someone on this forum you should at least make sure you are correct. Yesterday Ben replied to this post by John:
"yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife."
Posted by: john | July 6, 2006 11:05 PM
Ben immediately replied with this comment:
"First, it is spelled "you're" not your."
Let me correct Ben Finegold. The correct word is "your" and John was correct. The word you're is a contraction which stands for "you are". Saying..."....and so does you are wife" is incorrect. The word "your" shows possession such as "your" book or "your" car or "your" rating, etc.....
So PLEASE.....Next time you want to try to show your intelligence do not embarrass yourself.
Posted by: James at July 8, 2006 15:34

Patzer joe said,
Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.
By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59

Finegold said,
I will go back to reading silly posts instead of posting them myself and arguing the gawking rabble.
Usually I can post for 3-4 days before getting fed up, but my patience is either less than it is used to be, or people here are even more annoying than before (as the mayor's aid said to Joe Quimby, "Dumber sir.")
Ok, back to reading the insulting posts instead of absorbing them! :)
BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:02

john said,
yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife.
Posted by: john at July 6, 2006 23:05

Finegold said,
Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!
First, it is spelled "you're" not your.
Top level Eurotrash??? lol....that is funny, but I am not sure why.
My book on the Smith-Morra was co-authored by Bob Ciaffone, and it generally gets good reviews, mainly due to the fact that it is all original analysis and most of it is quite good. I did none of the prose, just the analysis. The book was published in 2000, so there have been some errors found. We may come out with a second edition, not sure....that is really up to Bob.
I am surprised you did not like my book, yet you have all three of my DVD's? Most people told me they like the DVD's, but you are entitled to your opinion. Making them was fun anyways.
Ok, I am done......I know when I am not wanted! :)
BPF
PS Still fun to read the posts when people don't lambaste you to pieces!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:08
Posted by: Kaliman at July 8, 2006 19:35

James...

Mr. Finegold's correction of:

"Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!

First, it is spelled "you're" not your."

was obviously in reference to this post:

"Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.

By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59".

Mr. Finegold is quite correct that Patzer joe used the wrong form of "your" at the beginning of his post.
Posted by: Chessty at July 8, 2006 23:16

Does ANYONE at this place known that 99% of my posts are just me being silly?

You guys spend several posts discussing who was corrected about "your" and "you're?"

Lighten up! Chillax!

Anonymous random move generator
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 8, 2006 23:25

Actually, Gman's last post is totally correct - except that Goichberg didn't get involved until after the TDs looked up the information from the print on the device. The case for expulsion wasn't even presented to Bill until that evidence was found.

For those interested, go to http://www.rahq.com/phonak.htm and see the device. It's made by Phonak, and the model name is Phonito. And, whatever else you want to say about it, it's simply not a hearing aid.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 9, 2006 00:27

In Michigan, we have our own speed chess rules (MCA). One of the rules is: No cheating!

Although this has nothing to do with any of the posts .....I would like to point out that Emory Tate kicked a$$ at the World Open. He scored a full point over the IM norm, and he played TONS of top level players, and a lot of his games were 5+ hours. Also, Tate lived up to his reputation in San Diego this year, with NINE decisive games in the US Championship in 9 rounds!

Maybe MIG can start a thread about the great performances at the World Open. :)

Signed,

Anonymous Guy in Columbus Posting from his Hotel Room

PS That Robson is really talented as well....he was paired up a lot and handed out a lot of whoopass....anyone know how old he is...he good.
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 9, 2006 00:41

Let's not forget about Kazim Gulamali, Jake Kleiman, and James Critelli.

Gulamali, rated a mere 2276 coming into the event, finished 6-3 and beat GMs Perelshteyn and Gildardo Garcia and IM Lenderman.

Kleiman, initially rated 2308, beat GMs Sadvakasov (!!!!) and Antic, and drew GM Kaichesvilli.

Critelli, who entered rated only 2240 (and surpassed 2200 for the first time only 4 months ago!), beat GM Panchanathan and IMs Taylor and Sarkar, and drew with GM Fedorowicz and (I believe GM-elect) Lev Milman.

Also worth noting is Tatev Abrahamyan's round-1 upset win over GM Shabalov. Poetic justice too, in light of GM Shabalov's views on women.

I will add in passing that no one accused any of these worthies of cheating. That alone should dispel the idea, voiced by a few ill-informed posters here, that anyone who upsets a GM or otherwise performs way above expectations, tends to come under suspicion.

Regarding Emory Tate, I had the pleasure of watching him explain at least two of his games to rapt crowds of spectators. They were his hard-fought third-round loss to GM Vescovi, where Tate was on the verge of having a mating attack before losing on a blunder, and his later endgame win over Fressinet, the young French GM who sported a 2683 (USCF provisional) rating.

A forthcoming Chess Life article will delve into the the psychology of upsets, and give specific advice for how to approach a contest with a titled (or much higher-rated) adversary. The main illustrative game in that article will be Emory Tate's famous 1997 brilliancy over GM Yudasin.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 9, 2006 12:11

Jon,

Kazim actually beat three GMs and IM Lenderman. Your point is taken.

Daaim
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 9, 2006 19:01

What point is taken, Gulamali, famous junior reputedly best bughouse player in the world, Jake kleiman also famous up and coming JUNIOR, Critelli Up and coming JUNIOR, all have lived on the top junior lists. Not one of these players is over 20 years old. Each of them took 7 years from the start of playing to become a master. Varshavsky, best I can tell was never a junior player and had NEVER ever even achieved a master rating after 14! years of tournament play. Suddenly a guy who has never even been a master is beating Ilya Smirin !!. Varshavsky is not comparable to any of the names you mentioned.

Gman.
Posted by: Gman at July 9, 2006 20:38

What point is taken? Gulamali, famous junior reputedly best bughouse player in the world, Jake kleiman also famous up and coming JUNIOR, Critelli Up and coming JUNIOR, all have lived on the top junior lists. Not one of these players is over 20 years old. Each of them took 7 years from the start of playing to become a master. Varshavsky, best I can tell was never a junior player and had NEVER ever even achieved a master rating after 14! years of tournament play. Suddenly a guy who has never even been a master is beating Ilya Smirin !!. Varshavsky is not comparable to any of the names you mentioned.

Gman.
Posted by: Gman at July 9, 2006 20:39

Gman, I think you missed Jon's point. As I understand it, he was saying that just because a relative unknown starts knocking off GMs, people don't necessarily accuse them of cheating. People only get suspicious when there are other factors present. None of those factors were present with the three people Jon mentioned, so no one levied any accusations. There were other reasons to question Varshavsky, so his results are questionable.
Posted by: Mulfish at July 9, 2006 20:50

I agree Varshavskys results are highly questionable. I hope some further investigation can be done. The evidence against Rosenberg, is rock solid and he outright guilty and needs to be banned for life.

Gman
Posted by: Gman at July 9, 2006 20:54

This was posted to the chess newsgroup earlier today"

Should Steve Rosenberg be kicked out of the USCF?

Turns out that the Steve Rosenberg problem is much bigger than anybody
realized at first.

Steve Rosenberg was caught cheating at the World Open Under-2000
Section held in Philadelphia, June 28 to July 4, 2006. It was
discovered as the tournament was concluding that he was wearing
headphones and underneath he was wearing a supposed hearing aid.
However, the hearing aid had an antenna and when a tournament director
seized it, it was discovered not to be a hearing aid at all, but an
audio reception device.

Up until this point, Steve Rosenberg was leading the tournament with a
score of 7.5 in 8 rounds. Had he been declared the winner of the final
game, he could have received a $25,000 first prize.

Instead, his results were stricken entirely from the tournament
scores. All seven of the opponents he defeated were given half-point
byes. The one player he drew plus his last round opponent was given a
forfeit win. Those two players ended up tied for first place and each
won $13,258.50.

Here are the final standings. Please do not confuse Mark Rosenberg,
who is from New York, with Steve Rosenberg, who is from Michigan.

http://www.worldopen.com/2006Results/20.html

Note that the top two players each have a forfeit win WF in their
cross-table. These are forfeit wins against Steve Rosenberg.

Now, to see who Steve Rosenberg played, go here:

http://www.worldopen.com/2006Results/20-7.html

As you can see, Steve Rosenberg is listed as number four. In round 3
he defeated 27 Michael Kats. In round 4 he defeated 26 Corbin Yu.

Now, go back to
http://www.worldopen.com/2006Results/20.html

Look for Michael Kats and Corbin Yu in those rounds and you will see
that they finished 17 and 20 and each was given a half-point bye for
those rounds.

By following this method, you can determine all the games played by
Steve Rosenberg, even though his results were stricken from the final
cross-table.

However, that is only the beginning of the Steve Rosenberg Problem.
The problem is much bigger than that.

Steve Rosenberg is a USCF Certified tournament director. He has
directed 200 USCF Rated tournaments. The results of many of these
tournaments are suspicious.

More than that, prior to the World Open, Steve Rosenberg played in
three tournaments in Michigan and won all his games, scoring 19-0 in
those three tournaments combined. Prior to this fantastic winning
streak, Steve Rosenberg was only rated 1731.

Now, get this. Here is the final kicker. Just prior to the World Open
Steve Rosenberg played in 31 USCF rated online tournaments and he was
also the director of all those tournaments and HE WON ALL 31
TOURNAMENTS !!!!!

Take a look at
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12480813

You will see 31 10 5 Quick Rated Tournaments (PA). Count them.

Now, click on any one of those 31 tournaments. Look to see who the
director was. You will see that the director was Steve Rosenberg.

Now, look to see who won the tournament. You will see that in every
case the tournament was won by Steve Rosenberg.

Now look at the tournament directing record for Steve Rosenberg, which
is at:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtDir.php?12480813.1

You will see that Steve Rosenberg has directed 200 USCF rated
tournaments, almost all of which were won by Steve Rosenberg.

This is really unbelievable. I think the result is obvious.

Steve Rosenberg must be expelled from the United States Chess
Federation
Posted by: Robert at July 9, 2006 21:23

Chess is the only major sport I can think of where novices are allowed to win big prizes. Can you imagine a novice prize in tennis? How about in golf? The closest analogy I can see to the chess class prize situation is in dressage, i.e. horse dancing, which is a leveled pursuit with specific standards and criteria for the different levels.

Lower-rated chess players, however, play the same game as top players, albeit not as effectively. While, there are “classes” in chess, loosely defined by rating according to the USCF as A-E (?), no one is arguing that the low classes are defined by anything other than rating, or that low-rated players play a different game than top players. Low-rated players are also capable of rapid improvement while retaining the same rating, as you often see among children in lower sections who have been playing unrated games, rendering the rating classes even more meaningless.

About the chess prize situation...it seems like people are ignoring the obvious. The only really fair solution to the class prize situation is to make all major tournaments OPEN TOURNAMENTS. The swiss system or another system, such as a full or partial elimination tournament (with one or more knockout rounds), could be used.

This idea no doubt has detractors and supporters in all camps. Grandmasters and other strong masters would play very few interesting games in an open (not till the end of the tournament, in a swiss system), and would face potential upsets. However, on the plus side, they would have a chance at proportionally much larger prizes. Low-rated players would be annoyed at having less chance of winning prizes. However, they would have the opportunity to play better games than usual, and if they won, they would know they won fairly. Once, when I played in the U.S. Open, I experienced the open tournament situation at its best. I was paired up against several players several hundred rating points higher, and upset a couple of them with a draw and a win! It made me crave more open tournaments, but unfortunately, I usually only play some bad games in a big tournament like the World Open. Then ask myself why I paid all that money to enter, when there are sandbaggers anyway who will usually win all the big prizes. If games were more interesting, I would continue to play even without the hope of winning a prize, and I am sure that a lot of low-rated players would still enter.

Tournament organizers should approve of open tournaments, because there should be considerably less funding allocated for class prizes than in sectioned tournaments. So, even if there were a few less entries, the organizers should still come out ahead, even if they increased top prizes for top masters. They also would not have to move the World Open next year because of lack of space in Center City.

It seems like the big organizers are disinterested in actively seeking sponsorship. Maybe hiring some real, professional publicists to publicize the story of modern chess and its financial woes, in the media or some public forum, would help get sponsorship. Most average people played the game as children, and don’t want to see chess masters fall into ruin!
Posted by: Amandaw at July 9, 2006 21:27

A post identical to Robert's was posted on the USCF forum under the name of Sam Sloan. I don't know if Sloan posted here under another name or if someone named Robert copied it without bothering to credit the original author.

The factual accuracy and relevance of some of his data was called into question there. In particular, it was noted that Mr. Rosenburg won most, but not all, of those events and that he also didn't direct all of them. Moreover, he outrated most of the players by a health margin so his success rate isn't totally surprising. There were a few players close to his rating, but not many. It was also noted that there is nothing against the rules about playing in tournaments you direct, though it advised not to, and that other TDs have engaged in the same practice.

The evidence and opinions posted thus far don't give me warm fuzzies either, but a little intellectual honesty in the arguments against the man wouldn't hurt. Not that I've seen anything on the USCF web site to suggest we can expect that from Mr. Sloan.
Posted by: Mulfish at July 9, 2006 23:15

hi
Posted by: Sloan at July 10, 2006 10:34

varshaky=rosenberg
Posted by: Sloan Ismail at July 10, 2006 10:35

varshavsky=rosenberg
Posted by: Sloan Ismail at July 10, 2006 10:36

varshavsky=rosenberg
Posted by: Sloan Ismail at July 10, 2006 10:36

How, exactly, do open tournaments solve the problem of big prizes to lower-rated players?

There are still class prizes, correct? If there's a massive tie for first and a clear winner for the U1400 class prize, the class prize may still be more than what each of the co-winners of the tournament get.

If you're advocating reducing the class prizes to such an extent that such a thing won't happen...well, please organize such a tournament. Such a novel approach should be encouraged, even if the organizer winds up losing thousands of dollars.

Sponsorship for chess tournaments out of nostalgia and a 'Save the Chess Masters' campaign? Businesses are a lot more practical than that.

Hiring PR firms to improve chess's reputation as a 'sport' where advertising and sponsorship money would be well spent? Where's the money for that to come from?
Posted by: cynical at July 10, 2006 11:59

cynical,

I replied to "amandaw" on a different thread, in my most recent comment directed to Aviv. I made essentially the same points you just did, but with more elaboration.

To repeat that message on this thread: The problem with all proposals to significantly reduce class prizes -- whether folding everything into a single Open section as "amandaw" suggests, or continuing to run multiple rating-based sections with a more "top-heavy" prize structure -- is that the proponents of such changes never say where the money will come from to make their system work.

If more than a handful of GMs and IMs are to show up for a big, lengthy chess competition, they will need sizable cash prizes as incentives. Right now the lower-rated sections are funding those top-level prizes, through high entry fees that are disproportionately channeled into the prize fund for the top section.

Amandaw, like Josh Gutman before her (him?), and like Ben Finegold and Aviv on the other thread here, is practicing Harry Potter economics.

That is, each of them explain why a different prize structure would be more fair. This is coupled with a (explicit or implicit) appeal that future large tournaments should be run their way instead of the Goichberg approach, which relies on relatively bottom-heavy prize funds to attract large numbers of paying entrants whose fees then subsidize the top prizes.

If the total prize fund is deprived of the "extra" or "surplus" funds currently being paid by the class-section entrants, WHAT WILL MAKE UP THE GAP?

That is the question that people such as Amandaw never answer. Indeed, I'm starting to think they don't even understand the question itself -- thus they fail to see that it holds make-or-break significance for their entire quest for prize-fund reform.

Logially, it seems to me that those "lost" funds would have to be provided by either:

1) An external sponsor (the alternative outlined in my comment on the other thread); or

2) An organizer willing to gamble his own money by guaranteeing large prizes for a single-section tournament, and keeping his fingers crossed that enough average-to-weaker players will show up (presumably, paying much lower entry fees than now) without the incentive of winning a large prize themselves, that the total entry fees will be enough to fulfill his prize obligations and still leave some profit for him; or

3) Many top-rated, titled players would perhaps be willing to play for much SMALLER prizes than are offered under the present system.

Perhaps the reformed system proposed by Amandaw would provide these pros with so much emotional gratification -- by stroking their sense of "fairness" (since weakies like us would have very little chance of pocketing big sums we don't "deserve") -- that a few dozen GMs and several dozen IMs would still show up to play even if the minimum first-prize guarantee was, say, $5,000 instead of $18,000.

And perhaps Valdemort is coming back in corporeal form. And perhaps one can be killed by listening to the cry of the Mandrake root. Or not.

Anyway it's worth a try -- provided SOMEONE is willing to foot the bill.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 10, 2006 12:41

Hi, out of curiosity does anyone know if the prize money checks have been mailed out yet? I won a bit in the U1400 section and am wondering when I should expect it.
Posted by: Kyle at July 10, 2006 17:11

Amandaw stated "Chess is the only major sport I can think of where novices are allowed to win big prizes."

First, chess is not a major sport in the US, so I don't think that is a correct starting point for comparisons. Professionals in major sports like golf, tennis, American football, basketball, baseball, etc., have learned how to create attractive "products" that draw large numbers of fans, who in turn attract significant sponsorship. Chess professionals have not yet achieved this in the US.

Second, novices in chess aren't really "allowed" to win big prizes. A more accurate statement is that in chess, a certain population of amateurs enjoy pooling their money together into big prize funds, as the foundation for their own intense chess playing events. The ELO system, which does not have an effective counterpart in other sports, enables this. Using some of their money to increase the open sestion prize fund, thereby attracting internationally titled players, adds to the amateurs enjoyment of the event.

In other sports, serious amateurs spend similar amounts of money, just in different ways. Greens fees at prestigious golf courses, like Pebble Beach, are in the neighborhood of $400 per round (18 holes). And for that money you get a half day's experience of playing where the pro's play. So paying a $400 enty fee at the WO, to play for big money, is the chess amateur's equivalent of the golf amateur playing Pebble Beach.
Posted by: RP at July 10, 2006 18:39

Ok, at least you see that the situation for chess (in particularly chess professionals) in the U.S. is sick, and is destroying the lives of those who love the game and have worked the hardest. What bothers me so much are not the huge prizes paid to amateurs (unless they are professional cheaters they still can't make a living from their prizes). I can't see any way around that, aside from corporate sponsorship. But the fact is that not even very strong grandmasters can really make a living just from playing in America. One needs to teach chess, and this has turned into something really ugly lately.

I never imagined until the last few years that there were actually professional chess teachers rated 1400, or even under 2400. However, as I have found, these 'chess teaching companies' (and they are a dime a dozen) actually avoid hiring strong players. Meanwhile, if you are a strong master you have spent a lot of time and made sacrifices in your personal life, and do not have as many options as someone who is a class player and finds teaching chess to children an easy way to make money, but has otherwise done something else with his life. If you don't think that a situation where a 1700 teaches chess and makes a good living, while a 2450 works as a dishwasher, lives in poverty, and can't afford to even play chess is messed up, then you just don't have any respect for the game and should find something else to do with your time, like maybe watch tv. Being a good player should be a qualification for teaching chess, not a *disqualification* as it currently is. I think that before the 1200's start making a living as a chess teacher, every single master should have the opportunity for work if they want it. I know you will accuse me of being communist and un-American, but actually hard work and achievement should be rewarded, not punished.

This means, that if you are a weak chess player, you have done something else with your life, and you should make your living doing that. Studied accountancy? Become an accountant. Got a CDL? So go drive a truck. Hung out with friends? Become a bartender or secretary, but don't take the work from someone who spent their life playing and studying chess and needs it. And don't decide that at 1700 you are qualified to write a book on chess, you aren't. And don't call yourself a grandmaster to steal money from clueless rich people if you are not. (I have actually seen several examples of this).

This type of stuff is actually ruining people’s lives. How would you like to spend years at something and then be told that you can't make a living at it, while many people who have absolutely no credentials can? And don't tell me some b.s. like 'the world ain't fair'. Because by that logic we might as well let innocent people get executed, and so on.

This might explain some people’s bitterness. The situation with tournament prizes cannot be easily fixed, and I cannot really see how even the top 20 players in this country could really make a living playing only in unsponsored swisses, let alone people who are very talented but never got the opportunities or training (nobody became 2750 without some kind of support, whether it is from one’s country, federation, family money, or—a job teaching chess!). It is not even the entry fee, it is the deadly travel and hotel business. I would have to beat a strong grandmaster with black in the last round in Philadelphia to get anything at all, something Kasparov didn’t even manage to do (against him). I almost did, but nerves interfered as usual. It is always this way. And the little ones are in the long term hopeless as well—you need to get there somehow (hard if you don’t have a car), stay in a hotel $70 a night, and pay some sort of entry fee, and first place is $800 and there are five GM’s playing! So really, virtually everyone except a couple of people need to teach, but then you get rejected in favor of a 1200!

I can see from the way people responded to Finegold that respect for strong players has gone down dramatically. If you have no respect for strong players, you have no respect for chess, so what are you doing here? There is online poker next door.
Posted by: b at July 10, 2006 21:34

Ok, at least you see that the situation for chess (in particularly chess professionals) in the U.S. is sick, and is destroying the lives of those who love the game and have worked the hardest. What bothers me so much are not the huge prizes paid to amateurs (unless they are professional cheaters they still can't make a living from their prizes). I can't see any way around that, aside from corporate sponsorship. But the fact is that not even very strong grandmasters can really make a living just from playing in America. One needs to teach chess, and this has turned into something really ugly lately.

I never imagined until the last few years that there were actually professional chess teachers rated 1400, or even under 2400. However, as I have found, these 'chess teaching companies' (and they are a dime a dozen) actually avoid hiring strong players. Meanwhile, if you are a strong master you have spent a lot of time and made sacrifices in your personal life, and do not have as many options as someone who is a class player and finds teaching chess to children an easy way to make money, but has otherwise done something else with his life. If you don't think that a situation where a 1700 teaches chess and makes a good living, while a 2450 works as a dishwasher, lives in poverty, and can't afford to even play chess is messed up, then you just don't have any respect for the game and should find something else to do with your time, like maybe watch tv. Being a good player should be a qualification for teaching chess, not a *disqualification* as it currently is. I think that before the 1200's start making a living as a chess teacher, every single master should have the opportunity for work if they want it. I know you will accuse me of being communist and un-American, but actually hard work and achievement should be rewarded, not punished.

This means, that if you are a weak chess player, you have done something else with your life, and you should make your living doing that. Studied accountancy? Become an accountant. Got a CDL? So go drive a truck. Hung out with friends? Become a bartender or secretary, but don't take the work from someone who spent their life playing and studying chess and needs it. And don't decide that at 1700 you are qualified to write a book on chess, you aren't. And don't call yourself a grandmaster to steal money from clueless rich people if you are not. (I have actually seen several examples of this).

This type of stuff is actually ruining people’s lives. How would you like to spend years at something and then be told that you can't make a living at it, while many people who have absolutely no credentials can? And don't tell me some b.s. like 'the world ain't fair'. Because by that logic we might as well let innocent people get executed, and so on.

This might explain some people’s bitterness. The situation with tournament prizes cannot be easily fixed, and I cannot really see how even the top 20 players in this country could really make a living playing only in unsponsored swisses, let alone people who are very talented but never got the opportunities or training (nobody became 2750 without some kind of support, whether it is from one’s country, federation, family money, or—a job teaching chess!). It is not even the entry fee, it is the deadly travel and hotel business. I would have to beat a strong grandmaster with black in the last round in Philadelphia to get anything at all, something Kasparov didn’t even manage to do (against him). I almost did, but nerves interfered as usual. It is always this way. And the little ones are in the long term hopeless as well—you need to get there somehow (hard if you don’t have a car), stay in a hotel $70 a night, and pay some sort of entry fee, and first place is $800 and there are five GM’s playing! So really, virtually everyone except a couple of people need to teach, but then you get rejected in favor of a 1200!

I can see from the way people responded to Finegold that respect for strong players has gone down dramatically. If you have no respect for strong players, you have no respect for chess, so what are you doing here? There is online poker next door.
Posted by: b at July 10, 2006 21:34

Ok, at least you see that the situation for chess (in particularly chess professionals) in the U.S. is sick, and is destroying the lives of those who love the game and have worked the hardest. What bothers me so much are not the huge prizes paid to amateurs (unless they are professional cheaters they still can't make a living from their prizes). I can't see any way around that, aside from corporate sponsorship. But the fact is that not even very strong grandmasters can really make a living just from playing in America. One needs to teach chess, and this has turned into something really ugly lately.

I never imagined until the last few years that there were actually professional chess teachers rated 1400, or even under 2400. However, as I have found, these 'chess teaching companies' (and they are a dime a dozen) actually avoid hiring strong players. Meanwhile, if you are a strong master you have spent a lot of time and made sacrifices in your personal life, and do not have as many options as someone who is a class player and finds teaching chess to children an easy way to make money, but has otherwise done something else with his life. If you don't think that a situation where a 1700 teaches chess and makes a good living, while a 2450 works as a dishwasher, lives in poverty, and can't afford to even play chess is messed up, then you just don't have any respect for the game and should find something else to do with your time, like maybe watch tv. Being a good player should be a qualification for teaching chess, not a *disqualification* as it currently is. I think that before the 1200's start making a living as a chess teacher, every single master should have the opportunity for work if they want it. I know you will accuse me of being communist and un-American, but actually hard work and achievement should be rewarded, not punished.

This means, that if you are a weak chess player, you have done something else with your life, and you should make your living doing that. Studied accountancy? Become an accountant. Got a CDL? So go drive a truck. Hung out with friends? Become a bartender or secretary, but don't take the work from someone who spent their life playing and studying chess and needs it. And don't decide that at 1700 you are qualified to write a book on chess, you aren't. And don't call yourself a grandmaster to steal money from clueless rich people if you are not. (I have actually seen several examples of this).

This type of stuff is actually ruining people’s lives. How would you like to spend years at something and then be told that you can't make a living at it, while many people who have absolutely no credentials can? And don't tell me some b.s. like 'the world ain't fair'. Because by that logic we might as well let innocent people get executed, and so on.

This might explain some people’s bitterness. The situation with tournament prizes cannot be easily fixed, and I cannot really see how even the top 20 players in this country could really make a living playing only in unsponsored swisses, let alone people who are very talented but never got the opportunities or training (nobody became 2750 without some kind of support, whether it is from one’s country, federation, family money, or—a job teaching chess!). It is not even the entry fee, it is the deadly travel and hotel business. I would have to beat a strong grandmaster with black in the last round in Philadelphia to get anything at all, something Kasparov didn’t even manage to do (against him). I almost did, but nerves interfered as usual. It is always this way. And the little ones are in the long term hopeless as well—you need to get there somehow (hard if you don’t have a car), stay in a hotel $70 a night, and pay some sort of entry fee, and first place is $800 and there are five GM’s playing! So really, virtually everyone except a couple of people need to teach, but then you get rejected in favor of a 1200!

I can see from the way people responded to Finegold that respect for strong players has gone down dramatically. If you have no respect for strong players, you have no respect for chess, so what are you doing here? There is online poker next door.
Posted by: b at July 10, 2006 21:36

Chess professionals, I assume like b, must be some of the most idealistic people in the world! I'm sure b is also quite a good person.

Still, as a teacher, I see that professional teachers are held to local, state, and national educational standards. FIDE currently offers a training program with qualifications awarded, but why not the USCF? Why not uphold a standard for chess teachers, so that at least, if people don't see the USCF qualification by their child's teacher's name, and they have the slightest clue about the game (i.e. their child is rated), they will wonder why their teacher does not have a certain qualification.

It's just a fact of life that word of mouth and individual human ability to maneuver through elaborate social webs is the number one factor in success. As a music teacher, I see that word of mouth is a huge factor in lesson fees received, even though music is an academic field, unlike chess. (Chess players may claim otherwise, but the fact is that chess is currently taught at only one or two U.S. universities.) Word of mouth is always a huge factor in success, and geography is, too.

It's tough for "chess professionals," everyone knows that, and so good chess players should not have to rely on teaching to earn a living. Playing ability does not translate into the ability to have a successful teaching career. Organizers should award higher prizes, pure and simple.

In a capitalist society which purports to reward cleverness, and where the NYSE has hosted simuls with Kasparov, I am absolutely amazed that chess is not as popular a corporate pursuit as golf. I guess the problem is that chess requires intelligence. Studies have shown that monkeys can pick successful stocks better than humans, on average. Also, chess is not social...you can't talk to your opponent during a game, really, or discuss the next business deal.
Posted by: amandaw at July 11, 2006 00:40

I don't believe that it is a forgone conclusion that professional chess can't attract greater sponsorship. Overall there seems to be more money flowing into the game than there has ever been. Professional chessplayers, as individuals, and as a group, have just as much of an opportunity to increase their incomes as anyone else involved in the game. But ratings & titles alone will not guarantee specific levels of earnings. Earnings ultimately depend upon what the customer (sponsor)wants ... and that's the key, identifying who the potential customers are, what they desire, and how much they will pay. Then creating the "products" that they will buy.

On the subject of teaching chess, there are many students, both young and old, for whom only an internationally titled teacher will do. But let's face it, do most of the kids who are learning to play chess, really require a GM/IM/FM? So its not surprising that players of modest chess skill can become successful, paid chess instructors.

Potential sponsors are everywhere. That may be part of the problem ... they look like ordinary people; they don't have a big "S" emblazoned on their foreheads. Chess professional might want to pay more attention to those hundreds of class players who play in big (expensive) events like the World Open. Who are these guys? Clearly they love chess, and obviously they have the financial means to travel to these events, pay the substantial entry fees, hotel charges, etc. Some are quite affluent - business owners, managers & executives at major corporations, physicians, attorneys, well connected public officials, etc. Or they know people who are affluent and connected.

Perhaps some of them would be interested in sponoring a player, or a team. Or hosting a major event in their community. Maybe they are willing to act as advocates within their organizations, lobbying for chess to be selected as an area for sponsorship. Or maybe they can make a credible introduction to someone who can become a sponsor.

Most of what the public sees of a PGA (professional golf) event is what is shown on television, and that is the players playing the game. A smaller number of people, those who actually attend the events in person, see that there are a lot of hospitality rooms and tents set up around the course, hosted by the contributing sponsors. And what very few people see, is the intense people networking that goes on amongst sponsors, players and organizers. And the players are key .. actively meeting with existing sponsors, potential sponsors & organizers. They do pro-ams, clinics, attend lots of meals & receptions, give talks ... in general they make themselves available to and actively build relationships with those who can flow support (money) into the game.

Several chess pro's get this, and that number seems to be slowly growing. But many don't. There is no secret magic potion that will make chess playing become a lucrative profession. But I'll end the way I started ... with focus and hard work, there is no reason to believe that significantly increased earnings opportunities can't be created for professional chessplayers in the US.
Posted by: RP at July 11, 2006 12:52

Responding to RP's 2nd paragraph:

First of all, there are not a lot of students for whom only a GM/IM/FM would suffice. If there were, GM/IM/FM's would be in better situation, and I would not be writing. Second, it is true that the average child learning how to play does not *require* a GM/IM/FM. But it would still be better. Yes, stronger players do teach chess better at every level, contrary to various other claims (which mostly come from the 1700 people who make their living teaching chess). And I am not talking about teaching the rules of the game, nobody should be getting $200 an hour to teach that. I was taught in 5 minutes by a thirteen-year-old boy, and he definitely was not paid anything. Third, the GM/IM/FM earned the right to make a living through chess, the average guy did not. As I said, the GM/IM/FM made certain sacrifices and as a result has less options. By taking away one of the few ways he has of making a living (since tournaments as we see are hardly viable) you are really ruining a person's life. And that isn't nice, is it?

About the sponsorship--so you think that one's actual accomplishments shouldn't matter, and instead those who are good at 'networking' should be able to eat? You do realize that many people went into chess because they despised this crap?
Posted by: b at July 11, 2006 18:36

Oh, and regarding Amandaw's statement that chess professionals shouldn't have to rely on teaching, that prizes should be higher--yes, that would be great. But it isn't that way now, and I don't see where the money would come from, aside from the sudden appearance of corporate sponsors. So until that happens (if it ever does) good players should have the chance to teach chess to make a living. They should not be automatically disqualified because they have too high a rating.

Strong masters should also get the opportunity to write to make a living. There is absolutely no reason why average chess players should be getting contracts to write books when GM/IM/FMs who are capable of writing get nothing.
Posted by: b at July 11, 2006 18:59

I think there is some confusion between rb and b. Apparently b is a very qualified person who has not had much opportunity finding chess teaching jobs, and has found that lower-rated players obtain teaching jobs, while he cannot. RB should not dispute B's own experience or the indisputable fact that the better the teacher plays, the more he or she has to teach. Chess students tend to be intelligent. They could probably keep up the pace with a teacher who was actually intelligent and accomplished.

Obviously, B has a lot to offer. B should spend more time on the PHONE and less time on the internet!!! Although who knows...wasn't Ben Finegold asking for money directly on his blog? Did that work? Seems pathetic, but maybe it works. How does he get people to read his blog in the first place? I think he has game analysis on the blog. Maybe b should try begging or setting up a blog with begging on it. Maybe we all should try it.

I think those rich guys who travel to the events have tremendously huge EGOS and think that they can challenge GMs. Very few actually understand that they suck. Most feel powerful and don't like to admit that they SUCK. Giving money to higher rated players would be admitting that other people are better than they are.
Posted by: amandaw at July 11, 2006 20:38

I think there are more foundations that could be tapped into to fund chess, or perhaps even to fund individuals, such as b. There are a million of them. Check out "The Foundation Center": http://fdncenter.org/ The USCF has a publicist on staff, but could hire a publicity firm or grantwriters, and thereby make a small investment for a higher return. So could the AF4C. J. Shahade cannot do it all!
Posted by: amandaw at July 11, 2006 20:45

That's right, amandaw and Mr. "b":

The dedicated individual chess players who spend money on chess and are your major sponsors, all SUCK. Customers SUCK too, for buying books written by non-titled players. And so do all the schools and foundations that run kids' chess programs, for being dumb enough to hire 1700s who are willing and able to work on a schedule and as part of a team.

Yeah, how can those customers, publishers and employers be so stupid as to perennially thumb their noses at Mr. "b" ... who after all is a "very qualified person" ... one of the elite few who understands that his title is an en-TITLE-ment -- not simply a credential that should give him a leg up if he and an otherwise equally qualified person without a chess title applied for the same job at the same pay.

Since other financial opportunities for chess pros are lacking, "good players should have the chance to teach chess to make a living." You tell 'em, Mr. b.

All us fish who happen to have better teaching skills than you, and better writing skills, but not better chess-playing skills -- we will all happily step aside and give up our chess income, so that you can at last reap the just rewards of your long-time devotion to excelling at chess. After all, your devotion to chess has been so exemplary, so all-consuming, that no time or mental energy was left to bother with picking up mediocre concepts like politesse, basic business skills, basic social skills, or common sense. Those things are for patzers, what does a Grandmaster need with them?

So go forth and demand what's rightfully yours. Go out and claim your entitlement -- a job you don't have to compete for (and especially not compete with, G-d forbid, PATZERS), and don't have to prove yourself worthy of ... because your FIDE rating and the two letters that precede your name are all the proof any reasonable employer, school principal, headmaster or publisher would ever ask for.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 11, 2006 23:14

I may address some of my posts as replies to people like b and amandaw. But they are not who my posts are really directed at. There are large numbers of people who follow these discussion threads, mostly silently. Included are chess pro's and amateurs. Reasonable people, who all love chess, either as a hobby or as something more serious. People who are genuinely interested in hearing information & exchanging ideas that expands their understanding of both the challenges and opportunities that confront us, as we commonly seek to grow our game -- for both amateurs and pro's.
Posted by: RP at July 12, 2006 12:24

I heard something once which was claimed to be an "old proverb". I don't know if that claim is true, but the statement seems to be relevant to this thread. ..

"A man will need to stand on a hillside for a very long time, with his mouth wide open, before a roasted pheasant will fly into his mouth"

b & amandaw - just be patient!
Posted by: RP at July 12, 2006 13:10

Jon Jacobs,

I think hard works should be rewarded. Hard work at chess should be rewarded with the opportunity to earn a living, not misery. If you do not think that spending your time studying and playing chess is worthy of reward, then you have no respect for the game. If you have no respect for the game, you should get the f--- out. You should not be teaching chess if you do not respect or love the game. You should be investing in stocks or something. You also should not assume that titled players have no social skills or writing ability. I have noticed that many of those people making a living by teaching how the knight moves are accomplished liars as well. I guess that is a social skill.

In most fields, certain "letters" are an entitlement to the opportunity to earn a living. P.H.D, MD, etc... They are not merely letters, they are indicators of a person's level of accomplishment and work completed. They are not a license to sit around and ask for money, it is true, but they should receive respect and the chance to make a living through work. Same with chess. At least if you do not see it as a glorified tic-tac-toe, in which case you should not be here.

I do not think that consumers of chess books written by 1700s "suck". I think it is those writers who "suck". They think they are *entitled* to write a book because they happen to know the right person, but they have not done the work to justify their opportunity.

I also think those paying them to write the said shoddy and error-filled book "suck" because they ignore the years of work done by people with greater qualifications in chess, many of whom are just as qualified, or more qualified, as writers as well. And those publishers are at the same time cheapening chess and destroying its literature, which was once a beautiful thing.

Same as above with the school programs. By the way, I think that a higher percentage of titled players are presentable and willing to work on a schedule than the general population. Although years of poverty will tend to erode that.

Meanwhile, let the leeches go to hell.
Posted by: b at July 12, 2006 20:47

b,

We both agree that hard work should be rewarded. But everyone with a job knows that it is also hard work to LOOK FOR AND FIND work -- and that is the sort of hard work that, in a capitalistic society such as I live in, tends to get rewarded most often -- like it or not.

You on the other hand seem to feel that the world owes you a living because of the PAST work you put in earning your (GM?) title. Unfortunately, that isn't the way things "work". For doctors, maybe, and for other licensed professions where the number of licensees is strictly controlled, and people who lack the credential are by law barred from competing with those who possess it.

In your case, though, it's hard to see how barring "unqualified" players like me from writing about, or teaching, chess for pay (a change you seem to advocate), would be any different from asking that people who hadn't earned some special credential such as a Ph.D be barred from publishing books about politics, or art, or even writing a novel ... in order to reserve the field of book-writing for properly qualified experts.

Yes, there is a quality-control mechanism -- it's called the MARKET. That market is comprised of me and my fellow class-players, who in buying and reading chess books and taking chess lessons, are putting in work of the same kind you did while working your way up to your FIDE title. Disrespect us at your (economic) peril -- as I warned IM Finegold on another thread -- although it seems you are so out of touch you couldn't even comprehand such a warning, let alone heed it.

The market also has a filtering system, comprised of profit-motivated publishers accountable to their shareholders, and school boards accountable to the voters. Each of these "gatekeepers" uses a variety of criteria (presumably chess knowledge is one criterion among many) when deciding which among numerous competing applicants to publish or hire.

That is how the world we live in works. You sound like you would be more comfortable in the old, Soviet world, where getting work (and pay) was a given for anyone with the requisite chess skill and chess credential (provided of course they didn't displease the authorities in some other way).

In our world, you are totally free to seek a book contract or apply for a job teaching chess. In addition, you are even free to bypass any intermediaties and reach out directly to your end-market: all us readers and students who could benefit so much more from your writing and teaching, than from the "shoddy and error-filled" products forced upon us by those intermediaries who "suck" (the publishers and educators you've evidently struck out with time and again). You can self-publish and self-market your books like some authors do nowadays; you can set up your own chess academy and flaunt your credentials, so that all the students who are serious will flock to you instead of trying in vain to learn from fish like me.

I can see why you don't use your name. You are spewing venom in all directions in a futile effort to blame someone else for your own failures.

That is what I meant when in my previous comment I posed the rhetorical question: "What does a Grandmaster need with politesse, or basic business skills, or basic social skills, or common sense?"

In case the target of my sarcasm wasn't fully clear, that remark was NOT meant to apply to ALL Grandmasters, or even MOST grandmasters. It was aimed squarely at YOU, Mr. b ... and the (thankfully tiny) minority of titled players who view life as you do.

Nakamura certainly doesn't share your bilious view. Kasparov certainly doesn't. Susan Polgar certainly doesn't ... nor Yuri Lapshun (who isn't too proud to teach at Chess in the Schools, alongside of us patzers) nor Leonid Yudasin nor Sunil Weeramantry nor Dean Ippolito nor Tim Taylor nor Jennifer Shahade nor Greg Shahade nor Danny Kopec nor Dan Heisman nor Jeremy Silman nor ................

(Yep, there's a few FMs sprinkled in there -- hope you won't gag on your dinner Mr. b, at seeing the names of mere FMs jammed together with players of your exalted caliber -- but most of them, thank G-d, are IMs or GMs.)
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 12, 2006 22:44

Oh my God, someone sure is a Republican! Well, the "market" is not an ideal in itself. Supply and demand does not make right and wrong. Even some Republicans have a social conscience, though apparently not, from his last post, Mr. Jacobs.

B never said that those people suck, I did. Why did you conflate the two posts? That was my personal social commentary about the overblown egos of the people in lower sections...did I touch a nerve?

Have you not heard that Ponzi schemes are illegal, even in our great capitalist society? There are still countless other great nations where corporate monopolies are even illegal.
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:31

P.S. Check 90 per cent of your list of great figures who do not share b's "bilious" view. What are they, floored 2200s? People who quit chess? Hmm, I see a curious trend here...
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:35

I remember a news story about women in Mexico who paid fortunes to a self-proclaimed "doctor" to inject them with silicone and other literal garbage she called "collagen." They all got cancer and other diseases. It took years, but they were slowly dying, and they didn't know till it was too late. Meanwhile, the doctor made millions off their misfortune...simply because she lied about her credentials and was not able, nor willing, to obtain medical-grade collagen!

Those people you mentioned may just financiers at heart, with a penchant for chess, who have found their niche in "chess professionalism." Dare I even say that consumers who are not GMs DO NOT SUSPECT the poor quality of many books and teachers? Don't you care one way or the other, or are you just trying to reduce your competition at the chess board?

Would you like me to go out and publish a book with my crappy rating, but put some glossy decoration on the cover, and make up some fake qualifications about myself? I could also play up dubious qualifications and make them sound impressive. I could leave out important information, such as: "WORLD CHAMPION" (in Under 4, Women's Kindergarten Bishops-Only Game.) I could publish simple, well-known problems, not bother to edit them, and take up space by reversing black and white to move. PLENTY of people would buy it because they don't know the difference. If they couldn't figure out the answer, it would be THEIR problem.

Why don't you think that chess teachers have a responsibility to possess some real knowledge? What IS WRONG with accountability? Surely even George Bush believes in testing, No Child Left Behind, national educational standards, etc.

People are often innocent lemmings in the marketplace. That's why we have things like marketplace and medical controls, even in our a capitalist society. Otherwise it would be called ANARCHISM.
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:49

Finally, where do you come off listing off a bunch of well-respected chess players and teachers, and implying that they appreciate serious patzers writing chess books? I don't really know them...they may be self-promoting, even staunch capitalists, for all I know...but I am sure that they would find it distasteful or be downright annoyed if a very low-rated player makes a living off chess. On their behalf, I take all their names off your list.
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:54

Finally, where do you come off listing off a bunch of well-respected chess players and teachers, and implying that they appreciate serious patzers writing chess books? I don't really know them...they may be self-promoting, even staunch capitalists, for all I know...but I am sure that they would find it distasteful or be downright annoyed if a very low-rated player makes a living off chess. On their behalf, I take all their names off your list.
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:55

Obviously, b is already in "economic peril". The undiscerning nature of the great capitalist public and "supply and demand" for books with pretty covers has placed him there. Go watch TV, you will never have any success at chess.
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:56

Finally, where do you believe you have the right to list a bunch of well-respected players or teachers, and imply that they approve of serious patzers writing chess books or giving chess lessons? I don't really know them...they may be self-promoting, even staunch capitalists, for all I know...but I am sure that they would find it distasteful or be downright annoyed if a very low-rated player makes a living off chess. On their behalf, I declare them off your list!
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:57

oops triple posted I guess I was a little too pissed, sorry
Posted by: amandaw at July 13, 2006 05:58

amandaw,

Yes, I do seem to have touched a nerve. Are you and b married, perhaps? My comments about him and addressed to him seemed to make an inordinately strong impression on you.

I note that in one of your posts, you wrote: "Check 90 percent of your list of great figures who do not share b's 'bilious' view. What are they, floored 2200s? People who quit chess...."

Then a couple of posts later down, you corrected yourself and referred to them as "a bunch of well-respected players or teachers." Guess you checked with your husband first and learned a bit about all those people whose names you failed to recognize the first time around.

That's a good idea, you should make a habit of it before opening your mouth or keyboard and revealing to the world how little you know of what you are talking about. For example, you also might want to ask him what "Ponzi scheme" means, before using the term again. You obviously don't have a clue.

By the way, the reason I listed those particular names is because each is involved in one or another activity that brings him money from chess (apart from playing for money). In other words, I was citing them as positive models, counter-examples, to your and b's view that strong players inevitably fail to find a market for their services to other chess players.

It seems obvious from the tone of both your and b's comments, that this attitude itself is a major part of the reason that Grandmaster "b" failed to do so -- if indeed he ever even tried.

IM Taylor is a prolific (and high-quality) author. IM Kopec runs a well-established chess camp and is also an author. IM Ippolito and GM Yudasin each started chess academies. FM Weeramantry started a highly successful chess school that provides employment to a number of IMs and GMs (as well as non-titled players). IM Lapshun as I mentioned earlier works nearly full-time teaching for New York's Chess in the Schools. The Shahades everyone here already knows about (except you, evidently).

I cited all these FIDE-titled players (EACH ONE of whom, incidentally, is also currently active as a player -- the sole exceptions being Kasparov, Heisman and possibly the Shahades), to refute your belief that it is somehow beneath the dignity of a titled player, to have to go out and seek chess-related income in competition with the unwashed, un-titled masses ... or else take a risk and start their own privately-owned chess-related enterprise, again in competition with similar products offered by people like me.

If your product is truly better -- a quality you feel is supposed to come with the territory of having a GM title -- then why wouldn't more people buy yours than mine?

The answer, according to you, is that the chess devotees who reject your product must be stupid. You wrote: "Dare I even say that many consumers who are not GMs DO NOT SUSPECT the poor quality of many books and teachers?" And: "... the undiscerning nature of the great capitalist public 'supply and demand' for books with pretty covers."

Since you resorted to name-calling ("Republican") in your first response to my common-sense, apolitical comments about who buys chess books and why, I will in turn ask you: If we chess players are too dumb to choose which chess books and teachers to spend our money on, who would you prefer make those choices for us? Commissars?

I'm wondering what you hope to achieve by venting this way. A measure of sympathy or agreement from readers of this blog? For blaming the world for your failures? Maybe you'll draw a touch of pity, but surely nothing more enobling than that.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 13, 2006 10:58

Being frustrated that something in which you have invested a lot of time and energy to excel at doesn't seem to command much economic return is understandable.

But having contempt for those who do value what you are doing, and are your best (only) supporters, seems, well .... crazy!
Posted by: RP at July 13, 2006 12:02

Well, an interesting dispute.

I would normally not buy a book written by anyone less than IM. Most of the very poor chess books I have seen have been by weak players. The US has quite a few examples of these.

Of course, 'banning' books by non-titled players is ridiculous.

There are a lot of incredibly stupid books written. For example a lot of the popular medically-related books. Someone who claims "PhD" without saying in what and from where is usually a crank. Such books have more potential to do harm than chess books though.

If buyers look at the qualifications and background of the author of any technical book, with half an eye on the publisher too, they will avoid some of the rubbish.

Chess book reviewers (IM or GM preferably, of course) can help a lot. I try to see a couple of reviews before buying a book.

Hey what am I saying? I never buy chess books, because I hate chess according to Jon Jacobs non-Esq.
Posted by: gg at July 13, 2006 12:09

Right on, RP. You are putting me to shame, by neatly expressing in 2 sentences what I've been taking 2 pages to say!

I especially liked your previous post where you countered amandaw's and b's lament about the injustice of it all, by recounting the old proverb that "A man needs to stand on a hillside for a very long time, with his mouth wide open, before a roasted pheasant will fly into his mouth."
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 13, 2006 12:11

RP--

If you're getting paid by the word you're going to go broke.
Posted by: greg koster at July 13, 2006 12:36

Just picture that succulent pheasant zooming past b's wide open jaws into the maw of a 1700 player . . .
Posted by: Aaron at July 13, 2006 16:55

I think you misunderstood me Mr. Jacobs. I am tired of posting here, but don't want to be misunderstood. I don't know why you think those people don't share my views. Have you asked them all? Most of these people do deserve to make a living in chess. Of course Lapshun deserves to work at chess-in-the schools. I do not know if he loves his work or not, and it would be better if this level of player could make a living in tournaments, but I am sure he is happy to be making a living. I myself tried to get a job at chess-in-the-schools a couple of years ago. When I desparately needed a job they turned me down, and undoubtedly hired many 1200 players since then. I did not get the chance to do even a demonstration lesson. I will hate that organization forever.

Taylor is a perfect example of my point. Yes, he is an interesting writer. Yes, he deserves to make a living more than the 1200 players or the 2000s or whatever. But did you read his article last year where he described his poverty? Do you think he is happy to see a 1200 making the amount of his monthly rent in an hour, teaching chess? If he is not angry, then perhaps he is just a better person than me, but I think he definitely deserves to be. He is a perfect example of what is happening.

The others that you named are successful, and certainly don't have a reason to complain. Some of them do though, by the way.
Posted by: b at July 13, 2006 21:27

Concerning Rosenberg, he was a former administrator at Chess-Live. He was banned immediately after this scandal, and what people are saying there is that rather than using the earpeice to cheat he was using pocket fritz. Someone who's sone played him and had observed him the entire time said that betweennearly every move he went to the bathroom.
Posted by: Jon Hecht at July 14, 2006 03:39

Concerning Rosenberg, he was a former administrator at Chess-Live. He was banned immediately after this scandal, and what people are saying there is that rather than using the earpeice to cheat he was using pocket fritz. Someone who's sone played him and had observed him the entire time said that betweennearly every move he went to the bathroom.
Posted by: Jon Hecht at July 14, 2006 03:39

Hating Chess-In-The-Schools forever just insures that when they do have an unusually talented scholastic player emerge, who could benefit from GM/IM level coaching, they won't refer him/her to you. And with your attitude, why would anyone else?
Posted by: RP at July 14, 2006 11:06

Yes, Rosenberg MUST be bannished entirely from USCF. For his 2 "best friends" claiming good words about him and talking all that gibberish nonsense not to mention showing off COMPLETELY NONSENSE games of his from *past* tourneys in attempts to sway everyone away from the main issue of his actions at the WORLD OPEN. The proof is in the pudding that he's guilty as OJ.

How do you 2 best friends of his (or anyone stupid enough to side Rosenberg) explain him having a radio receiver COMPLETELY IDENTICAL to the one Goichberg found online and exactly what business would he have with those in his ears with its specific purposes?

Secondly, WHY WOULD HE COVER HIS EARS if he's not guilty?? What's the next excuse people "he has an ear ache" and it was imperative that he cover his ears?!?!?! LULZ !! I wish I found him after I found out his name at World Open cuz I woulda taunted him like he hadn't been taunted before and cause so much HATE he'd be peeing for mercy. I'm not known as the HATEMAKER for nothing.

Anyway, he BETTER be banned completely from any chess events. If not, I will try my hardest and see to it that he gets that appropriate treatment no matter the cause. Because him, just like a man with no parole life sentence should just ROT.

-BughouseMaster-
Posted by: BughouseMASTER at July 14, 2006 19:04

You know Steve is a former World Champion professional boxer, right?
Posted by: mastap at July 15, 2006 00:24

Jon Jacobs, why do you think it's all right to insult me because i am female? Also, why do you assume I have to go ask my husband before I do something? Why do you think that I am married to b because I found something you said to him so personally offensive to myself? Even in Capitalistland, my emotions are not subordinated to the market.

I personally have made the acquaintance of all those people on your esteemed list ("the in crowd"), including the all-powerful Shahades. I think the only ones I don't know personally are Polgar and Taylor. Maybe you do know these people also, but anyway, why do you insist on name-dropping all the time? Anyway, I'm sure most of those people would uphold the idea of standards in chess.

I'm off this thread, this is too personal for my taste.
Posted by: amandaw at July 15, 2006 10:55

The example of Ben Finegold just goes to show the alleged correlation between playing ability and IQ is completely false.
Posted by: A player at July 16, 2006 20:38

I had a firsthand look at a cheater in the World Open 2006. He was busted in the last round at the top board in my son's section, the Under 2000 section. My son was playing only a couple of boards down and I was watching the cheater's game. His name is Steve Rosenberg and his USCF ID number is 12480813. His USCF tournament history alone should have flagged him as definitely suspicious. For example, in 2002 Steve has a rating of 1751 and in three tournaments in two years it goes to 1749 to 1735 to 1731 in 2004. Then nothing until September of 2005 in which in three tournaments it goes from 1731 to 1827 to 1895 to 1974 in January of 2006. In those three tournaments in a little over four months Steve Rosenberg racks up three perfect scores and his rating soars from 1731 to 1974. He didn't lose a single game. And then he went to the World Open. He was the only player in the Under 2000 section who had 7 and 1/2 points out of 8 going into the ninth and final round. Not until the last round of the World Open did his opponent ask him not to use his earphones which were attached to a CD player and which until then had covered a hearing aid. He was well into the game when a TD requested he remove the hearing aid for an inspection. He did and returned to play at the board until a few minutes later when he was asked by another TD to accompany the TD out of the tournament room. He never returned. His name has been removed from the cross-tables now posted on USCF. The cheating will continue unabated as long as there is not even a possibility of punishment other than that of acquiring a new USCF ID number if he wants to avoid notoriety. USCF will not punish him. He is a lifetime member of USCF and will still be welcome to play in USCF tournaments. He was attempting to steal 60% of $25,000 and very nearly succeeded. And he will never be formally accused much less prosecuted. His cheating has cheated the whole Under 2000 Section not just the people who played him. All of the outcomes in the Under 2000 section are skewed and reflect his cheating whether he remains among the official players or not.
Posted by: Carol Gainer at July 22, 2006 15:06

Mrs. Gainer,

A group effort has been mounted to nudge tournament organizers and the USCF to adopt stiffer measures to punish cheaters, such as you suggest. Please see www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com. This effort actually was undertaken LAST YEAR, after somewhat similar cheating incidents occurred in that year's two biggest-money tournaments, and nothing much was done.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 22, 2006 15:25

Considering the widespread availability of digital cameras and camera phones, and Varshavsky's distinctive appearance, behavioral traits, and successful play against titled opponents, I'm amazed that not one person seems to have managed to produce a photo of him sporting his bucket hat.

As for the Rosenberg situation, I'd like to know exactly what was printed on the device that was removed from his ear. Earlier postings state that the information led to a website. Note that Phonak not only manufactures in-ear wireless receivers that could be used for cheating; they do also manufacture hearing aids. I'll venture a guess that hearing aids comprise a larger part of their business.
Posted by: Gerard Jendras at July 28, 2006 12:00