Kamsky, Izoria, Ibragimov, and Stripunsky tied for first at the big Foxwoods Open. Kamsky won a playoff blitz game against Izoria to be named the winner of the event. I haven't seen the actual prize list posted at the official site. The USCF site had regular updates, check it out. They should use tags to you could find all the items on a single event instead of hunting around. New Mexico's Jesse Kraai got his third and final GM norm and will get the title after he raises his rating over 2500. He scored wins over Nakamura and Shabalov, two of the favorites. That loss convinced Nakamura that it wasn't his event and he bailed on the last two rounds.
The USCF site says something about Kraai being the "first American-born GM in over a decade." While technically true, it's odd to exclude Nakamura and others who were raised here and got into chess in the US (Seirawan). Someone born in the US to, say, Ukrainian chess-playing parents would have more relevance to the "USA! USA!" arguments. I know "American-born" is a handy adjective, but "American-born chess" is really what the discussion should center around. Anyway, none of that has anything to do with our hearty kudos to Jesse, a FOD (Friend of the Dirt) from way back. Maybe now he'll be able to afford a real hat! An lo, there is a Kraai tag! We should have a contest to guess the event that precipitates its next usage. 2600? US Ch? Seen with Paris Hilton? Marriage? Shoplifting?
The comments have been reheating some of our favorite hash about draws, although it's a different animal in these big opens compared to elite invitationals. The organizers are making money on entry fees and the games are purely a means to an end for the players. Of course I still see no reason for draw offers to exist the way they do at any level or in any event. The chicken-and-egg argument about fighting chess and sponsorship is a paradox. The players have no obligation think about the long run or the greater good, especially when it's not clear what that greater good might look like (or if it's good for everyone). That's why it's an organizer/federation matter. There is no way to be sure that abolishing short draws would help help chess be accepted as a sport and eventually result in more sponsorship. It would be just one of many factors that are equally difficult to quantify. My point has always been that we should be doing as many things as possible to keep pushing the game in the right direction. It's not a solution, it's an ingredient.
Short draws certainly aren't the only curiosity about the results in these big opens. There weren't that many GMs at Foxwoods, a little over a dozen, but it does seem odd you can win a share of first place without beating any of them! That's what Izoria did. Kamsky and Stripunsky beat one GM each. Ibragimov downed two. All played at least two non-game draws with other leading players. As I said above, these pay-to-play open events are all about the benjamins, and I don't mean Ask Joel. Doing whatever you can do within the rules to get that rent check isn't for me to criticize. Nobody is buying tickets or selling corporate sponsorship. It's an element of the same pernicious culture, but that's so far gone it can only be fixed from the top.
"There weren't that many GMs at Foxwoods, a little over a dozen, but it does seem odd you can win a share of first place without beating any of them! That's what Izoria did."
Hey! He beat Kraai.
I know, so did another winner. I thought about mentioning it but figured I'd stick with accuracy for once!
Mig,
I might be starting something big here, but isn't it time to end this idiotic jingoism with caring more about people from and/or representing the same arbitrary district of this planet as you? Who cares what country Kamsky, Topalov, Kramnik, etc. represent? Let's cheer or not cheer for them based on who they are as people and chess players.
I disagree, Mig: "American-born" is a useful
and informative way of classifying and describing the players. If a GM was born in a foreign country, then that means that their upbringing was infused with the values and habits of that culture< not of American society. It is telling that Kraii is no young phenom--indeed, he is earning his title at a strikingly old age. At any rate, it is unlikely that Kraii received the benefits of growing up in an immigrant community where Chess is highly regarded, nor was he likely pushed by his parents to be a prodigy in some endeavor, in the way that many Asian parents drive their kids to compete in Spelling Bees, or learn musical instruments. I would argue that the efforts of the USCF to promote chess among school kids actually serves to retard the development of many promising youth, but that's another story altogether.
Was turnout down at Foxwoods this year. In the Open, it seemed that the field was weaker (although Nakamura might not share that opinion)
"I might be starting something big here, but isn't it time to end this idiotic jingoism with caring more about people from and/or representing the same arbitrary district of this planet as you? Who cares what country Kamsky, Topalov, Kramnik, etc. represent? Let's cheer or not cheer for them based on who they are as people and chess players"
@ Yuriy:
This is the only sensible thing which you have ever said during the course of your chessninja blogging.
As I mentioned in the other thread on Foxwoods, GM attendance must have been impacted by two big events in Europe at the same time. Many of the international traveling types didn't come, including last year's winner, van Wely.
DOug, that was my point about someone born in the US to Ukrainian emigre parents. Saying he was American born wouldn't be a useful descriptor in the way it is intended, or at least not in any useful way to distinguish him from someone like Hikaru, born outside of the US but with all of his upbringing and chess life in the US.
Right Yuriy, and let's all changed our names to "Human 1," "Human 2," and "Human 3" while we're at it. Nationality and culture are important, especially since chess is part of that culture. I don't particularly care where most players are from, but sometimes it is interesting. For example, the "why isn't chess popular in America?" is a perfectly reasonable and possibly edifying conversation to have. Nationality and culture also affect "who they are as people and chess players." You could also remove the names from all the games from the next big tournament and just look at the chess moves. Wouldn't leave us much to talk about! Plus, this item wasn't about rooting for anyone based on nationality or anything else.
Looks like Hikaru has lost over 40 points in Foxwoods in the past 2 years, having lost about 11 this time around, and losing like 25 last year (http://www.fide.com/ratings/trarc.phtml?event16=2570&codt=20)
Maybe Hikaru just isn't good in Casinos?
Personalities, playing style and playing strength are good reasons to like a chess player. Nationality is a pretty petty reason to like or dislike anybody, and I don't understand why you would equate eliminating one in talking about chess with the other.
Actually, you know, I am not even talking about eliminating, but maybe not talking about it so much? Perhaps one reason chess is not popular in the US is that the fans only get excited (or get more excited) when their own countrymen win? I wonder what could have given them that idea.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think it is a good thing to be proud when your own countrymen and women make high achievements. In the Olympics, chess or otherwise, each country cheers for their representatives and wishes to see them score well. Americans delight in hearing stories about players born in their State who bring back multiple gold medals in their chosen sport.
Perhaps in the USA where career opportunities are boundless and so few native-born promising young players choose chess as a career, an over emphasis is made of the rare player who sticks with chess and finally achieves great success.
I was a little disappointed Hikaru bailed on the last two rounds. A fighter never quits, and he could have won out to finish with a decent placing. Maturity issue perhaps?
I completely agree (this time) with Yuriy. Well said!
I don't even understand what you're saying now, Yuriy. Nobody was being jingoistic at all. And pretending nationality doesn't exist not only isn't possible, I don't even see why it should be a goal here. Unless you're talking some John Lennonesque "imagine all the people" let's all get together and pretend there are no borders. But that's not really what this blog is about. And don't tell the organizers in Dresden you want to eliminate the Olympiad.
Well done to Jesse for the norm! Certainly has been a long time coming for America ;).
Just to remind people- Jesse hasn't got the GM title yet. The norm hasn't been ratified, and his rating isn't high enough at the moment.
Trust Mark Howitt to throw cold water on other people's achievements.
He is right, until he gets his rating to 2500 no title for him.. and that isnt a sure thing.
No, trust Mark Howitt to not write under a false name and tell it how it is.
Kraai pushed his rating over 2500 at Foxwoods, trust me. I roomed with him and we went over his recent results, which are not limited to Fooxwoods. GM Kraai!
How old is Kraai? Does he play chess full time?
The problem with Goichberg's Casino Swiss lotteries is not that there are too many short, fightless, GM draws. The problem is tha Foxwoods and similar events garner too much coverage in the Chess media. The main virtue of these events is that they redistribute money from Amateurs to a few skillful and fortunate pro players, who generally can really use the $$.
But such events, with their 2 game/day schedule, and their re-entries, are essentially trivial in nature. Let's not criticize the GMs for their 5 move draws, but let's not imbue these Swisses with much significance, either.
"DOug, that was my point about someone born in the US to Ukrainian emigre parents. Saying he was American born wouldn't be a useful descriptor in the way it is intended, or at least not in any useful way to distinguish him from someone like Hikaru, born outside of the US but with all of his upbringing and chess life in the US."
There is "American Born" in the sense of being born in American (and therefore being a US citizen), and there is also the sense of the term as meaning "born From Americans". The term, for purposes of this discussion, probably ought not apply to those who happened to be born in America, but from a parent who was only a Naturalized--as opposed to a naturally born--US citizen. It certainly ought not apply to those players who were born in a different country. The idea is that it is meaningful to claim the player as an American only insofar as the parents of the player in question were not themselves mostly the product of a foreign society.
By that standard, Hikaru would not be included, since his step-father is a product of a foreign society. The mere fact that Hikaru's step-father is an immigrant entails that Hikaru's chess career was likely influenced by the socialogical phenomenon more commonly manifest in aspirant immigrant communities, where success is garnered through the creation of prodigies.