Foxwoods 2007

I hope young Ray Robson takes out some GMs! Could it be that the next sixteen year old super elite player to storm the world scene will come from Florida?!

man, that'd be awesome.

Wow, nice job by Hess putting up a fight against Kamsky and then later beating Nakamura in the same day.

Take a look at Shaba's fighting draw with white against Ehlvest. http://www.monroi.com/wdc/flashviewer/watch1.php?round_id=1102&game_id=13978&s_id=QWER8U6T

I find this fighting draw to be even more exciting. http://www.monroi.com/wdc/flashviewer/watch1.php?round_id=1104&game_id=14033&s_id=QWER8U6T

what the?! is the monroi site messed up or did kamsky and ehlvest really draw in five moves??

what's going on Gata? are you trying to make a point? i guess you want to show the world that adopting mig's anti-shortdraw rule is absolutely imperative, which is cool. i agree.

Lol... Gata will find it a bit more difficult in Sofia. No drawing in 5 moves or with IMs there!

Short, agreed upon draws, don't bother me much in Open tournaments like Foxwoods. It would be nice to see a huge battle between top contenders in the middle of the tournament, but logically from their point of view, why spend the energy? There's several rounds to go, and it's smarter to rest up, so they can clean up on the small fry in the subsequent round.

The tournament costs are covered primarily by entry fees anyway.

Ray Robson is my hero! The Florida kid will prevail!

cmc,

You are way behind the times. On "mig's 'anti-shortdraw rule'... Mig was not the first to suggest this notion as you imply. That movement has existed for years... even decades. Only recently has anyone acted on it. One of the first big tournaments to employ that rule was the HB Global Chess Challenge in 2005. I believe M-Tel Masters picked it up after that. There has been discussion about this issue for years even before Maurice Ashley wrote his 2003 essay about draws.

Before the HB tournament, he did another tournament in 2003 called the "Generation Invitational" that employed these 'anti-shortdraw' rules. Some players like the late Aleksander Wojtkiewicz would defy these rules by taking short draws anyway.

The debate still rages.

Kamsky wasn't "invited" to this Open tournament, although I'm pretty confident that he was allowed to enter without paying the entry fee. A big Swiss is about the $$, that's all. If a player feels that a quick draw enhances his chances for a bi payday, I'm not going to criticize him. C'mon, they havew to play two games/day, and in many other ways conditions are worse than in a Round Robin invitational event. If the sponsor/organizer wants to give "Primes" for fighting chess, that would be great...but for Goichberg, it is the number of Entries--not the number of moves--that counts!

Kamsky wasn't "invited" to this Open tournament, although I'm pretty confident that he was allowed to enter without paying the entry fee. A big Swiss is about the $$, that's all. If a player feels that a quick draw enhances his chances for a bi payday, I'm not going to criticize him. C'mon, they havew to play two games/day, and in many other ways conditions are worse than in a Round Robin invitational event. If the sponsor/organizer wants to give "Primes" for fighting chess, that would be great...but for Goichberg, it is the number of Entries--not the number of moves--that counts!

Doug: "If a player feels that a quick draw enhances his chances for a bi payday...".

Are the casinos now giving out prizes of a different kind?...

Wish I'd agreed to a quick draw in my final game at a club event last night instead of going for broke. I'd be $100 or so richer, lol. The guys one board ahead of me drew in 3 moves, went home early and split the top two prizes.

Nakamura didn't play after the 7th round, he was not even included in the pairings. Did he get ill?

Nakamura must have withdrawn after losing to Kraai, an IM.

How do you mean, withdrawn? A quick draw disappoints the fans, but simply not appearing anymore is even worse. Imagine, you are a big fan of Nakamura, because of his continuous will to keep playing, always trying to win. You drive all the way up there - and he doesn't play!

Surely he had a better reason than a lost game. Was he ill?

Oscar,
How was the drive? scenic?

"That movement has existed for years..."

I believe that it was one of the Laws of Chess for a while, from (I think) '62 to '64. FIDE chucked it after grandmasters started playing the same 16-move draws by repitition over and over.

Nakamura probably dropped out when he figured that there was no chance of taking a decent prize. Lots of top players do that. No big shock. Nakamura is no different than any other GM in that regard. Look at the table and you'll find at least a few other titled players who dropped out for similar reasons.

That would be very economical, and if this were the reason I would not blame him. But in my opinion it would be worse than e.g. a draw in 5 moves.

Oscar is right - A short draw to ensure a better tournament finish is much better than withdrawal.
However, if Nakamura paid his entrance fee, he can do what he likes. If he was given an appearance fee/free entry/accommodation/meals etc., he should play regardless of how many games he loses. I suspect it is the former.

However if he does fall in to the "short draws are the death of chess" camp, he now doesn't have a leg to stand on.

GMs don't get conditions in Goichberg events. They get free entry, but if they win a prize, they get $150 deducted from the prize as an entry fee.

Clearly many of you guys have never played at Foxwoods. Everywhere you walk: ching-ching-ching. Likley Nakamura thought better of his chances and decided to slip his way past security and onto the nearest $10-$20 7-card Stud table.

"There's no point of taking draws" - Nakamura

However, he is no stranger to 5-move draws either, of course:

[Event "Las Vegas op"]
[Site "Las Vegas"]
[Date "2006.12.26"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Izoria,Zviad"]
[Black "Nakamura,Hikaru"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "D11"]
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.e3 a6 5.Bd3 Bg4 1/2

Thanks John Fernandez, Nakamura is in the clear then.

However, IMO, he doesn't have the right to talk about quick draws any more.

"Thanks John Fernandez, Nakamura is in the clear then.

However, IMO, he doesn't have the right to talk about quick draws any more.

1.e4 e5 2. Qh5!? gives him the right.

Big money Swisses are mostly a form of gambling, so it is appropriate that the event took place in a Casino hotel. Of course, with a strong GM like Nakamura, the odds are actually in his favor. But when things don't work out, Nakamura is no different than other GMs in wanting to cut their losses. Essentially, Nakamura was in the position of having to play two games as exhibitions, since he was already, as a practical matter, out of the running for a share of 1st. He faced the prospect of having the chore of grinding out wins against a couple of strong players (not dissimilar from Kraii or Hess), just to avoid losing additional rating points.

Hikaru's withdrawals from a Swiss are rare, indeed. Usually, he is right in the thick of it for the money round. An analogy is Tiger Woods missing a cut after 36 holes of a Golf tournament.

Hi guys,

Start complaining about Nakamura (or any other GM) making short draws or withdrawing from a tournament once you start PAYING to watch, as in any other sport. Until then, don't imagine that a free entry fee (which they usually end up paying anyway) makes them your slave. It takes a lot of work, time, and sacrifice to become a GM, and the rewards are not so high. Unless he won a lot of money at the casino, Nakamura lost money by playing in this tournament, as will about half of the players in the US Championship, which no one seems to care to sponsor.

Doug, anonymous, I agree with you, it is absolutely Nakamura's right to do as he pleases in both these circumstances (you can see on many previous threads that I don't think draws of any description are a problem). The only circumstance where that would be a problem was if he was paid an appearance fee, which has been proven not to be the case.

I was just making a point to the anti short draw bleaters, who have been very quiet on this thread now that one of their heroes has acted perfectly within his rights, but maybe not in the way they would like. But maybe they will come out of their shells now in an act of blind faith...

As an affirmed member of the Anti-short Draw Bleaters Association, I'd like to say that some of you are mixing apples and oranges.

To equate a short draw in an open tournament like Foxwoods with a short non-game draw from, say, Linares, is idiotic.

One important point about the Izoria draw - it clinched clear first place. (http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200612295031.1-12641216).

This is like going bonkers at some golfer who needs a bogey to win on the 18th - and lays up to make par instead of going for a birdie. Why win? There's no benefit to the win.

Remember, spectators and fans have no rights for a reason.

So it is good to take a draw in 5 moves to clinch clear first place, because it is wise economically speaking. I agree. But then I do not understand why people complain if players take economical decisions at other times in the tournament as well, such as a quick draw to save energy. I remember people complaining about Gelfand, because he drew Leko in 24 moves (Dortmund). Although he had a good excuse, because he played over 100 moves in each of his two previous games.

And why is a quick draw at Foxwoods different than one at Linares for the die hard anti-draw specialists? The ones that want to change the scoring system (BAP, or 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw), the ones that want to forbid draw offers, or even let the player who stalemates the other one win? Surely they must complain about quick draws everywhere, not only at Linares, killing our noble sport?

A quick draw is fine with me, as long as a player realizes that he might not get invited next time. And yes, tournament organizers should pay more attention to that.

Oscar, I don't think too many really care one way or the other about non-game draws in Open tournaments. I don't, you apparently don't, so why even act like there's an issue there? Why use draws in these kinds of tournaments to bolster an argument about early draws in general?

The reason the ADBA's presence is not felt on this thread, isn't because our hero Nakamura quit after a few rounds. It's because we think it's stupid to complain about short draws in Open tournaments. Most of these kinds of tournaments even give you the option to take a half-point in one round without even showing up.

I'm just a fan of Kamsky and was expecting him to use the stronger opposition here as training for MTel. I questioned his motives for so short a game against Ehlvest who is obviously one of the top seeds at foxwoods. Why should Kamksy be so tired? This is his first action since last summer! The previous rounds at foxwoods didn't seem like too much work (though i must say Hess put up a good fight).

The GMs do work hard for little reward but its hard for me to consider it chess when after five moves and touching naught but a couple pawns you shake hands. That's just a joke to me.

@cmc

Kamsky's real objective is the candidates match in Elista. He is using this and MTEL as training ground for the Candidates Match. He might not want to reveal his preparation secrets to potential opponents like Bacrot.

dirtbag,

word.

Just a thought but can any one give an example of a top 50 chess player (Nakamura is at no 46) withdrawing from a chess tournament after a few rounds (open or otherwise) that he had entered because he was not going to be in the prizes.

I'm trying to figure out what the draw-problem is. I always thought people had problems with quick draws in general, but it seems I was wrong: in open tournaments it is no big deal. In the small round robins, that we do not follow on the net anyway, it is no problem either. So apparently the quick draw is only a problem at the major tournaments: Corus, Linares, Sofia, Dortmund, an occasional one such as the Tal Memorial, the world championship. My apologies if I forgot about other tournaments, it was not intentional.

In all those open tournaments, where players do not get a fee for playing, it is ok to play a quick draw? Then I fail to understand why somebody complained in the thread about the European Championship: "Games like this give chess a bad name", about a draw in 20 moves. And I guess nobody would complain if the last round of the next US championships saw some quick draws at the top boards as well.

Or am I wrong again? As I said before, it has become unclear to me what exactly is the problem with quick draws, where you can make them, and where not.

The ADBA consists of the two wings BTP and BTO, where the latter is significantly the larger. Most of us can hold two thoughts at the same time and se we can not Blame The Player for rational decisions, while we still would Blame The Organizers who could have done something about it.

So why are few of us yelling about Gata and Nakas choices? Because it is not the singular players responsibility to change the chess world. Organizers however could do their small bit, virtually without it costing them anything...

Q

Wow, nice results by non-GMs, tying for 2nd: IMs Kraai, Krush, and Pruess. And nice to see another strong Kamsky result. How can he still be this strong after leaving chess so long? Simply astounding.

The quick draw sympathizers ought to explain how making several moves then agreeing a draw fits in with the most basic objective of the game as set out in the current FIDE handbook.
Perhaps some players, arbiters and DOP's have difficulty understanding the basic rules and the requirement of strict enforcement of them....note carefully: nowhere does it state these requirements are optional.

Clearly, quickie draws are expressly against the objective of the game and therefore such games fall outside of chess and are non-chess. If you don't like this then lobby your federation and FIDE to change the basic rules. Until then, play by the rules and see they are strictly enforced.

(Quotes from rules adopted at 75th FIDE Congress...)
BASIC RULES OF PLAY
Article 1: The nature and objectives of the game of chess
1.1 The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board called a `chessboard`. The player with the white pieces commences the game. A player is said to `have the move`, when his opponent`s move has been made.

1.2 The objective of each player is to place the opponent`s king `under attack` in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have `checkmated` the opponent`s king and to have won the game. Leaving one`s own king under attack, exposing one`s own king to attack and also `capturing` the opponent`s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.

Article 13: The role of the arbiter (see Preface)
13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

The arbiter has no rôle in such matters. The Laws of Chess define what can legally be done, and how, not what MUST be done. Draw offers, just like clocks, are not inherent into the game itself, but are supplemental material designed for competitive situations. While I think short draw offers should be forbidden when players are being paid appearance fees and so on, this is not something up to the arbiter, but rather up to the tournament organisers. FIDÉ probably won't pass a rule on it because there are some tournaments where you pay your own entry fee. In those situations, while I hate seeing players take quick draws, it should be allowed because it's on their buck.

Hi Josh,
You make some interesting points!...but...the FIDE Laws Of Chess are quite specific as to what arbiters shall do...note the use of "shall"... and that is to strictly enforce the rules.
If players make no effort whatsoever to follow the basic objective of the game as set out in the Laws Of Chess...and which they have explicitly agreed to if played under FIDE rules!...then arbiters ought to be strict and simply forfeit them both.

The objective of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king, period. The objective is not to play a few perfunctory moves, shake hands and then go home, nor play pre-arranged draws nor buy/sell points: by imputation such quickie draws may be a tainted result.
How can some of the quickie draws even claim to be chess if the players violate the basic objective of the game? In many other sports and competitions such behaviour would lead to ridicule and even intervention/sanctions by their ruling bodies.
That chess officialdom has made just a few desultory attempts to enforce the very basis of the game undermines their credibility.
If there is widespread support amongst players that quick, uncontested draws may be OK generally or in certain circumstances then fair enough...BUT... first let them lobby their federations/FIDE to get the basic objective of the game changed to include some such phrase as "The basic objective of the game is to checkmate the opponent's king OR agree a quick draw...". Until then let's stick to the objective of the game and require arbiters to strictly enforce this whenever FIDE rules are in effect.

I know you're just trying to be funny, but it's well known that FIDE rules explicitely allow for agreed draws at any time of the game. That marks the end of that little "argument".

For what it's worth, I spoke with Izoria about the 5 move Ehlvest-Kamsky draw as he was playing on board 2 while they were on board 1 during that round. It turns out that Ehlvest had spent the previous night preparing to face Yuri Shulman, thinking he was going to play him that morning. I'm sure he was surprised to see he had gotten paired with Kamsky instead, and decided not to try his luck even though he had the white pieces.

Hi acirce!
Your several claims viz: "I know you're just trying to be funny, but it's well known that FIDE rules explicitely allow for agreed draws at any time of the game. That marks the end of that little "argument" ...

Sadly, are all incorrect.

Firstly, I am not trying to be funny.
Secondly, check out the FIDE Laws Of Chess again.
Agreed draws are not explicitly allowed at ANY time of the game. Some IMPLICIT requirements must first be met.....for example white plays 1.e4....can a draw be now agreed?
A valid scoresheet is not kept...can a draw be now agreed?
And so on....offer and acceptance of draws has several precise and at times quite technical requirements.

Thirdly, after the primary law, the laws and rules of chess have antecedents that first must be adhered to: but the primary objective of the game is clearly and explicitly stated as the first law. Everything that follows presupposes that this law is adhered to. If Rule 1.2 is ignored, thrown out, bypassed,modified, whatever, then we are in the game of non-chess.

Rules such as Rule 12.6 viz:
12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw.

In the application of the FIDE laws of chess...which arbiters *shall* apply strictly or at least are supposed to...I contend that it is clearly unreasonable to offer a draw or accept a draw if the objective of the game as per Rules 1.2 is ignored...that is that there has been no attempt whatsoever made to checkmate the opponent's king. In the case of an agreed draw after a couple of moves I contend that both players have breached the *reasonableness* criteria and a strict arbiter/DOP ought to forfeit them both.

Hi Richard!
You wrote:"For what it's worth, I spoke with Izoria about the 5 move Ehlvest-Kamsky draw as he was playing on board 2 while they were on board 1 during that round. It turns out that Ehlvest had spent the previous night preparing to face Yuri Shulman, thinking he was going to play him that morning. I'm sure he was surprised to see he had gotten paired with Kamsky instead, and decided not to try his luck even though he had the white pieces."

Thanks for this additional insight! I can well imagine the surprise of Ehlvest at the changed pairing. Was this a miscalculation on his part or did the DOP change the pairings?

Irrespective of the reasons given, is a 5 move draw reasonable? In other sports/competitions is this tolerated? Tiger Woods and Colin Montgomery are unexpectedly paired in match play. They both hit a few balls into the rough and shake hands on it. As if! They would be too embarrassed to behave like that....but some chess players seem hard to embarrass!

Do 5 move draws enhance the reputation of chess as a competitive game?...do 5 move draws enhance the reputation of the players involved?

Most likely, everyone here has seen the Kraai-Nakamura game. It's posted on the USCF website, and is probably available at chessgames.com. It's a nice example of blockading play -- Nimzovich would have enjoyed this one. Black's knight on h5, seeminly aggressively positioned to support the pawn storm, turns out to be misplaced. If 19. ... f4, White simply bypasses with 20. e4, and Black cannot make any further progress on the kingside. Black's 19. ... g4 implicitly recognizes that the attack has failed. White is then able to blockade with g3, and then open the h-file with Kg2, Rh1 and h3. Another nice theme in this game is alternation between play on opposite wings. While White successfully opens the h-file, it is his action on the a and b files that ultimately proves decisive.

all these "arguments" about draws at Foxwoods are ridiculous. This is not Linares. Kamsky, Nakamura, Ehlvest, etc are not being paid appearance fees. they are not given accomadations. They are there to WIN MONEY. It is so easy to sit back and judge them. As a spectator, you are owed NOTHING. A 5 move draw is victimless. if you think otherwise, you have some sense of entitlement and prefer to hinder these guys from making an already paltry living. If you are so worried about the "reptation of chess", there are many more things to worry about than Foxwoods.
Also, a huge congrats to GM-elect Jesse Kraai. His financial reward for this event that he almost won? about $500, not even enough to cover half of his expenses.
As far as Nakamura withdrawing, that should be no surprise. He was not playing at his usual level and was out of the money, so why not call it a day? He should play for the benefit of blog whiners? All of you who wanted him to keep playing for you should contact him so that you can send your donations for his hotel and travel expense.

Yo!

Mig wasn`t too impressed by my comments on "How Chess Imitates Life" i.e. a load of bollocks so perhaps he would care to read Dominic Lawson`s
(former Editor of the London Sunday Telegraph) review in the Mail on Sunday.(April 8th 2007). He does a wonderfully elequent demolition job on it and I urge everyone to resist buying a copy until you have held one in your hands. It is simply the worst book I have ever read, on chess or any other subject.

Heh, Dominic Lawson reviewing a Kasparov book, should be hilarious. Lawson can be a good writer, but he's taken far too many shots at Kasparov over the years, including in his own book, to be reviewing. By the way, stop hijacking items to troll about the book. There are items on the book if you must spew.

Draw offers are NOT illegal, period. Saying it over and over does not make it so.

Further, what if the most perfect game of chess of all time were played, with White attacking the whole time, Black defending (note: NOT trying to checkmate the opponent's King), and the end result is a draw, played to bare King's. Because White's play continued the attack the whole game, Black never had the chance to try to checkmate the opponent's King. According to you, it seems he should forfeit, after playing the most absolute perfect defence in all of chess history, it's not enough for you, because he didn't try to checkmate the opponent's King. What if attempting to checkmate would cause you to lose, because you have to keep parrying White's attack?

Big prize fund US swisses are unique animals. They are amateur fantasy events, funded out of the player 's own pockets. GM's are attracted by juicy open prizes, which are subsidized by the entry fees of the amateurs. So if the quick draws are ok with the amateurs, and they are of course legal, then I don't consider it a controversy. I was at Foxwoods. Naka's short draw didn't concern me. Kraai, Hess, Robson, Krush provided enough surprises to keep us class patzers entertained. Otherwise we were chasing our own golden dreams.

Regarding quick draws at elite events, the argument is that allowing such anti-competitive loopholes makes it more difficult to attract fans and thereby sponsors. How much effort would you make to follow a sport where the scheduled contest may or may not happen that day?? "Well Al, it looks like the Suns and Heat have decided to end this one early, with 5:03 left in the 1st quarter. That's it for now folks, please join us for NBA Championship game 3 on Thursday" Try to sell that arrangement to advertisers!

How many of us have been sitting on even in a large swiss with two rounds to go, realized there is absolutely no way +2 will win any money, and have thus withdrawn and gone home? I've done it, sometimes out of disgust, other times for the simple reason of getting a chance to sleep in my own bed one day earlier.

While I personally would like Hikaru, or any other highly rated player, to continue playing, if only to give a lower ranked player a sporting chance for a norm, I certainly won't criticize them for withdrawing.

Josh wrote: "Draw offers are NOT illegal, period. Saying it over and over does not make it so."

Josh, I suggest you re-read the FIDE rule book. In some circumstances draw offers may be illegal. See my earlier post for several examples. I did not say ALL draw offers are illegal. This is a straw man you built so you could knock him over. Congratulations.

Josh further wrote:
"Further, what if the most perfect game of chess of all time were played, with White attacking the whole time, Black defending (note: NOT trying to checkmate the opponent's King), and the end result is a draw, played to bare King's. Because White's play continued the attack the whole game, Black never had the chance to try to checkmate the opponent's King. According to you, it seems he should forfeit, after playing the most absolute perfect defence in all of chess history, it's not enough for you, because he didn't try to checkmate the opponent's King. What if attempting to checkmate would cause you to lose, because you have to keep parrying White's attack?"

This is another straw man which you erected so you could knock it over. Congratulations.
The laws of chess require a check be dealt with in some way so once one is in check of course one cannot ignore this but must parry it. Whilst one player is trying to fulfil the object of the game and checkmate it is too obvious the other may be required to defend. Nothing at all to do with the discussion.This whole discussion is about short, lifeless AGREED draws...BOTH players decide to play non-chess. BOTH players ignore the object of the game.
Your straw men example has nothing in common with this situation.
Take your example of a perfect hard fought draw and compare it to the quickie draw. All players got the half point. Sound reasonable?
What do YOU think the object of the game of chess is?

Fluffy wrote:
"all these "arguments" about draws at Foxwoods are ridiculous."

Fluff, a lot of the discussion, esp mine was of a general nature, not necessarily specific at all to Foxwoods.

Fluffy wrote:
"This is not Linares. Kamsky, Nakamura, Ehlvest, etc are not being paid appearance fees. they are not given accomadations."

This is the current pathetic situation that chess professionals find themselves in. Some suggestions arise from time to time as to how this may be rectified. Other sports have addressed exactly these problems of arranged draws, privte deals, time wasting etc etc. Why can't chess? You want the current situation to persist? You therefore condemn many talented grandmasters to poverty.

Fluffy: "They are there to WIN MONEY. It is so easy to sit back and judge them. As a spectator, you are owed NOTHING."

Fortunately this attitude was scrapped by many other successful sports/competitions. Contempt for the fan base is stoopid and suicidal.

Fluffy: "A 5 move draw is victimless. if you think otherwise, you have some sense of entitlement and prefer to hinder these guys from making an already paltry living."

Bizarre!...you want 5 move draws coz this helps chess GM's make a paltry living?...Puh-leese!!

Fluffy: "If you are so worried about the "reptation of chess", there are many more things to worry about than Foxwoods."

A straw man...it was not only about Foxwoods. This post is the first time I mentioned Foxwoods at all.

Fluffy: "Also, a huge congrats to GM-elect Jesse Kraai. His financial reward for this event that he almost won? about $500, not even enough to cover half of his expenses."

AGREED! How old is JK?... from his pix he seems older than the teens we now regularly see hitting their GM norms!

Fluffy: "As far as Nakamura withdrawing, that should be no surprise. He was not playing at his usual level and was out of the money, so why not call it a day? He should play for the benefit of blog whiners? All of you who wanted him to keep playing for you should contact him so that you can send your donations for his hotel and travel expense."

My last donation was for a brilliancy prize to commemorate the tragic death of a chess player friend.
The organizers were a bit embarrassed as it tended to overshadow the prize fund so asked my permission to put half of it in the prize pool.
You seem to have a proxy sense of entitlement on behalf of Naka...why should I send him money?...he competed under rules which YOU claim are OK so perhaps you can make the donation eh?
In other sports/competitions professionals copying Naka's behaviour could face sanctions/ridicule without strong medical or other mitigating factors. Can't you see that?
To be treated as professionals there is an obligation to BE professional.

comparing chess to other sports is a poor analogy. all this "what if you showed up to a basketball game and they decided not to play", etc. people do not pay to watch chess. they probably never will. there is no problem to rectify. if Kamsky and Ehlvest drew in 100 move fighting draw, it would change nothing. the people here would not be whining, but they certainly would not be paying. Saying there are other things to worry about in chess is not a straw man - you are complaining about something that is NOT a real problem. if you must expend energey complaining, complain about something legitimate. people spend so much time on the "draw problem". really, aren't there other things to do?
Jesse is 34 years old. He is the first American - born GM in 10 years (Sherzer was the last). This to me is a more real problem. chess is such a pathetic living that almost every promising player leaves. So much is spent on scholastic events. while I think that this is good in itself, I think that some consideration should be at the top. Surely the US can develop more GM's than one every 10 years. It's just that anyone with such obvious talent usually has other talents, and they clearly choose other endeavors than chess. kind of hard to blame them. that said, expect Friedel and Pruess to follow Kraai in the very near future.

The comments regarding the shortage of money in chess are well taken. But what needs to be done is to solve this problem.

Corporations do not sponsor sporting events out of sheer generosity. They view contributions as an investment -- in name recognition, publicity, good will, etc., and expect a return on it. The bottom line is that if chess as a sport wants more sponsorship, it must offer something to the business world in return.

In another post, it was proposed that chess players do endorsements. Since chess players are perceived as intelligent people, they could plausibly endorse computers, processors, business software, cell phones, and other technologically advanced goods and services.

This would require some cooperation between chess organizations and ad agencies, for instance in working out legal agreements whereby photogenic players will do endorsements, in return for sponsorship of a tournament. If this seems like crass commercialism, it is very common in other sports.

In sum, chess will never achieve more sponsorship unless it is able to give something back in return.

"AGREED! How old is JK?...from his pix he seems older than the teens we now regularly see hitting their GM norms!"

34. I believe Sherzer is Hungarian. I think the last American born GM was Tal Shaked. But this idea that someone has to be a GM by 16 to have a future in chess is one of the reasons we have only one GM from America in the last ten years. If you look on the title applications site of FIDE, you will see that usually the majority of grandmaster title applicants were born in the 70s or 80s. Sometimes 60s. This idea that your career is over when you are 18, and adults deserve nothing, seriously keeps people back. Everyone doesn't grow up the same way, and especially in America you might not even get to play chess before you are 18.

The American chess society sees that it can make money off of children easily (tournaments with entry fees and no prizes, expensive chess lessons, funding from corporations because "its for the kids!") but it doesn't seem to realize that the kids grow up. It is really bad to promote chess to children, knowing that if they do listen to you and devote a significant amount of time and work to chess, they can expect a pathetic living, as well as everyone's disdain (since they are no longer "exciting young talents").

A little more wood for the draw fire. I have a question that doesn't seem to have been addressed. Sorry if this point has been raised before, it's hard to keep up with all the spew.

Say we have a swiss where a couple of players are tied for first at 7 points, then there are like 15 players on 6.5. Now a loss for one of the top players means maybe a top-25 finish, whereas a win or draw is top-5ish. What's the sporting motivation to go for a win here? Not even considering things like resting or other strategies. There's no incentive in the tournament structure to make it worthwhile for players to fight each game. I'm not even considering rewarding positional vs attacking play, as was mentioned by Monokroussos in his Chess Mind blog.

This question has me coming around to the idea that tournament chess, especially swisses, are flawed. I hate to say it, but maybe BAP or knockouts are the way to go.

Hi fluffy,
you wrote: "comparing chess to other sports is a poor analogy. all this "what if you showed up to a basketball game and they decided not to play", etc. people do not pay to watch chess."

I pay to watch chess so I assume you are misinformed? Because of my time zone I can be up at 3am to watch a live game that I pay for via a subscription. Imagine my joy to be up at this time to log in to watch GM "professionals" epic struggle for several moves of theory to an agreed draw.

fluffy: "they probably never will. there is no problem to rectify."

You need to update your knowledge base. If your attitude is widespread amongst players and chess officials the future of the game is not exciting.

fluffy: "Saying there are other things to worry about in chess is not a straw man - you are complaining about something that is NOT a real problem. if you must expend energey complaining, complain about something legitimate. people spend so much time on the "draw problem". really, aren't there other things to do?"

The draw problem masks other more serious problems. A quick agreed draw means collusion between players: collusion that may be harmless but may lead to tournament outcomes that are rigged and phoney. Such must denigrate chess and those who condone the practice. Mig has already commented on the Foxwood winners in these terms:

Mig: "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."

Mig's words are circumspect and very polite!!
Do you concede fluffy that the agreed draws can lead to questionable outcomes in chess tournaments? Is it odd to you that you can "win" tournaments like this? Is it for the greater good of chess? The agreed draw issue has many ramifications and may have a corrosive effect on the outcome of tournaments....a bit like insider-trading that can corrupt financial markets unless stamped on.
Did the organized-draw racket start in the Soviet-era of state-sponsored chess where certain "outcomes" were deemed desirable? I seem to remember Fischer campaigned against this. Tho the Soviet era seems to have passed the organized-draw rackets have so permeated chess culture as to be respectable! On this issue Fischer should have been listened to!

fluffy: "Jesse is 34 years old. He is the first American - born GM in 10 years (Sherzer was the last). This to me is a more real problem. chess is such a pathetic living that almost every promising player leaves. So much is spent on scholastic events. while I think that this is good in itself, I think that some consideration should be at the top. Surely the US can develop more GM's than one every 10 years. It's just that anyone with such obvious talent usually has other talents, and they clearly choose other endeavors than chess. kind of hard to blame them. that said, expect Friedel and Pruess to follow Kraai in the very near future."

Thanks for this update on Jesse Kraai. Great to see a 34yo getting GM status. Sad to see the state of US chess in general tho.
Your suggestions to rectify this?...apart from keeping the right to 5 move draws, the right of professionals to quit tournaments at will, the right of collusion amongst players to effect outcomes and such other "non issues"...!

Chess can learn from the successes of other competitions. The spectacular growth in player numbers and prizemoney and "overnight success" (but in fact many years of hard work and finance) of Texas Hold'Em for example has many lessons for chess. I hope it's not too late. Many strong chess players now play Poker to earn a living, and chess as just a hobby. Three of my local pubs now have weekly Texas Hold'Em comps with significant prizemoney. Not a chessboard anywhere in sight these days.

mr. dysgraphia

"I pay to watch chess so I assume you are misinformed? Because of my time zone I can be up at 3am to watch a live game that I pay for via a subscription. Imagine my joy to be up at this time to log in to watch GM "professionals" epic struggle for several moves of theory to an agreed draw."

um, your payment to ICC has little meaning to Kamsky. He does not see a cent of that, so I do not see how he owes you a fight. This is not like watching baseball on tv, where there are commercials and thus $ that inderectly does go to the players.

"The draw problem masks other more serious problems. A quick agreed draw means collusion between players: collusion that may be harmless but may lead to tournament outcomes that are rigged and phoney. Such must denigrate chess and those who condone the practice."

denigrate chess? how did these draws harm chess? do you think IBM is not spnsoring chess because of draws at Foxwoods? let's be realistic.

"Do you concede fluffy that the agreed draws can lead to questionable outcomes in chess tournaments? Is it odd to you that you can "win" tournaments like this? Is it for the greater good of chess? The agreed draw issue has many ramifications and may have a corrosive effect on the outcome of tournaments....a bit like insider-trading that can corrupt financial markets unless stamped on."

these guys did "win" the tournament. they can play these short draws because they won games before and after. this is not like insider trading at all. if you do not like the draws, play in the tournament, win games, and decline draw offers.

all of you whiners pay nothing towards the professionals' incomes, yet you want them to sacrifice their personal incomes for some perceived greater good. how much do you think an average GM spends travelling and playing in tournaments? how much do you think they make? the way the prizes are structured in these events playing all out to win every single game would be akin to buying lottery tickets. it is very easy to sit at home and criticize, asking these guys to sacrifice THEIR income for YOUR entertainment.

chess will not become popular on tv. get over it. the US will never develop waves of chess powerhouses. it's just not going to happen. while I believe chess is good for kids and support the idea of teaching droves of kids the game, doing that really has nothing at all to do with developing and maintaining world class players. how many active GM's that developed in the US under the age of 40 are still active? I'll save you the trouble. here's the list:

1.Nakamura

Something just occurred to me. Now, the last thing I'd ever want to do is further reinforce that smug sense of superiority and political correctness that our neighbors to the North are always so full of....but I can't help it, it's so obviously related to this discussion.

I can think right away of 2 GMs who are young, still active, and I think native-born in North America (but not in the US). Both became GMs within the past 5 years. I think both still live and play here (but come to think of it, for the past year or so I haven't heard much about the younger of the two).

Yet they are from a country whose population is a fraction of the US. As far as I know, neither even came from an immigrant family.

So what gives ....eh?

Are you talking about Bluvshtein and Charbonneau? What about Lesiege? How deliciously ironic it is for an American to accuse Canadians of a "smug sense of superiority". Just the sort of BS I'm coming to expect from you Jon.

ironic is not the word I'd use

Mark Bluvshtein was born in Russia. His family moved to Canada when he was 11, after spending six years in Israel. He is currently at University in Toronto.

Pascal Charbonneau was born in Quebec, but should perhaps be classed as an amateur or a semi-pro (he has a job on Wall Street now).

Previously anonymous wrote: "I believe Sherzer is Hungarian. I think the last American born GM was Tal Shaked."

Although he did learn the language, he was certainly born in the USA.

Speaking of "irony" ...Sherzer learned Hungarian because he, uh, "liked" Sofia Polgar. Later in life Sherzer became an MD and a GM (not too many of those, eh?). Although I am not sure if he is a FULL MD in the USA, he was in Hungary I believe. Anyways, Sofia and Alex never became a couple, HOWEVER, Sofia did marry another guy, ALSO an MD and a GM!! Yona Koshashvili.

On another note...although GM Maurice Ashley was not technically born in the USA, he is pretty American! :)

BPF

Ben,

We know Ashley is not the first 'black' GM (except by his own classification), but you say he's not even the first American-born black GM?

And he's a guy who like to draw real quick.

"African continent GMs do exist; but, according to the system of racial classification, I am the first Black GM in history...it matters, and doesn't matter, all at the same time."

Fluffy - You overlook that the sports which today offer significant financial opportunity to players did not start out that way. Organizers and players worked hard to do the things necessary to build the base of fans, and attract sponsors. The process in most cases took MANY decades. When what we now call the NFL began, in the early 1900's, most players had other jobs. Only 1 or 2 per team were full time pro's. Even by the 1950's, most players did not make a lot of money. It wasn't until the late 60's & 70's that the pay took off.

There is no inherent reason that chess can't grow significantly as a professional sport.

Can someone translate what ufr wrote? Other than the first word, "Ben", I have no idea what he means to say.

Thanks,

"Ben"

>>Now, the last thing I'd ever want to do is further reinforce that smug sense of superiority and political correctness that our neighbors to the North are always so full of..<<

But you just make it so easy.... :-)

Hi fluffy,

"um, your payment to ICC has little meaning to Kamsky. He does not see a cent of that, so I do not see how he owes you a fight. This is not like watching baseball on tv, where there are commercials and thus $ that inderectly does go to the players."

Huh?...what payment to ICC?...none from me so this is a furphy. That may help you understand why Kamsky doesn't see a cent of it!
If Kamsky doesn't want to fight in his games that's purely up to him and his admirers to explain, nothing at all to do with me.

"denigrate chess? how did these draws harm chess? do you think IBM is not spnsoring chess because of draws at Foxwoods? let's be realistic."

I already explained my views on these non-chess draws. If you think they somehow enhance chess and the reputation of these non-chess players well so be it. As to the IBM reference this is just another straw man you erect to then knock over. Totally irrelevant to the discussion. I never referred to IBM chess sponsorship or lack thereof nor the reasons. Yes, let's be realistic!

"all of you whiners pay nothing towards the professionals' incomes, yet you want them to sacrifice their personal incomes for some perceived greater good. how much do you think an average GM spends travelling and playing in tournaments? how much do you think they make? the way the prizes are structured in these events playing all out to win every single game would be akin to buying lottery tickets. it is very easy to sit at home and criticize, asking these guys to sacrifice THEIR income for YOUR entertainment."

Well!...the biggest whiner here is you fluffster!...all I ever hear from you is whining about the miserable state of US chess BUT do I see any solutions proposed by you?...NOTHING at all. Just a serial whiner. The miserable incomes of these "professionals" you constantly whine about are not caused by me. They are in a market place which has a scarcity of cash. If the contempt for chess fans you exhibit is widespread amongst the "professionals" then what do you expect? Let's be realistic indeed!

"chess will not become popular on tv. get over it. the US will never develop waves of chess powerhouses. it's just not going to happen. while I believe chess is good for kids and support the idea of teaching droves of kids the game, doing that really has nothing at all to do with developing and maintaining world class players."

This negative attitude is the central problem.
The post by rp encapsulates this very nicely, so nicely I will repeat it here in toto:

rp wrote wisely: "Fluffy - You overlook that the sports which today offer significant financial opportunity to players did not start out that way. Organizers and players worked hard to do the things necessary to build the base of fans, and attract sponsors. The process in most cases took MANY decades. When what we now call the NFL began, in the early 1900's, most players had other jobs. Only 1 or 2 per team were full time pro's. Even by the 1950's, most players did not make a lot of money. It wasn't until the late 60's & 70's that the pay took off.
There is no inherent reason that chess can't grow significantly as a professional sport."

Fluffy, when I flick through tv channels I see an amazing range of competitions being promoted and sponsored. Not just the big buck sports like the various football codes, basketball and the like. But for example darts...yes DARTS fergawdsake...large crowds, prizemoney, sponsorship to watch a few fat guys throw pointy things at a board. The promotors understand far, far better than people like you that it is not just the game alone that leads to success but the range CHARACTERS that play the game. Their clashes and personalities are brought out and this draws in the fans. And not just the players alone: their managers, coaches etc help to make up the experience for fans. Surely chess has an immense human resource available with the amazing range and diversity of players and personalities.

Who would have imagined that the marathon run could ever command prime time tv? A bunch of sweaty people running along a street for 2 to 3 hours...never!....how wrong!

I suspect that EVERY sport/competition had whining detractors who moaned about it "never making it big on tv". It was not that long ago where I live that footballers were paid a pittance and all had "proper" jobs. Now large numbers are on stellar contracts. Fans that actually go and watch live games are, if anything, in decline. The real growth and money flows from tv rights and sponsorship.
Who would have thought tv snooker and pool would become big money competitions?
Who in their right mind thought anybody would watch televised poker?
Professional Chess has a lot of baggage to jettison before it can catch up with other competitions. Organisational and Rules baggage ... and the whiner baggage too.

Ben Finegold wrote: "Can someone translate what ufr wrote? Other than the first word, "Ben", I have no idea what he means to say."

I'm not a US resident but my understanding of what was written follows:

"We know Ashley is not the first 'black' GM (except by his own classification), but you say he's not even the first American-born black GM?"

There existed 'black' GM's before Ashley...somewhere.
There may have been a 'black' American-born GM before Ashley. However, Ashley thinks he is the first.

"And he's a guy who like to draw real quick."

I assume a reference to the wild west gunfighter: quick on the draw?...ie shoot first, ask questions later!

"African continent GMs do exist; but, according to the system of racial classification, I am the first Black GM in history...it matters, and doesn't matter, all at the same time."

This I believe is a quote from Ashley himself.

African GM's exist. However in African countries they do not go on about 'black' this or that....this method of classification seems entrenched in the USA: the need to classify people as Caucasian, Black, Asian, Hispanic etc.
So, other countries (including of course non-African countries) may have 'black' GM's but never refer to them as such therefore if only the US classifies 'black' GM's as a category then of course someone will of necessity be the first in this category...Ashley lays claim. It matters and doesn't matter: a point to note but not a big deal.
HTH.

dysgraphia,

In Africa, they DO have those classifications... Europe does too. Why would you present such inaccurate statements? I would agree that racial politics differ and there is not as much emphasis placed in these issues as we find in America. Racial politics has dominated American history and have shaped its development.

Politically, historically, ethnically and socially we understand the differences in sub-Saharan Black African and Saharan Africa which is predominantly Arab. There are also East Indians in Africa as well as Whites in Africa. There are currently five African Grandmasters, but none would classify themselves as "Black." One is Moroccan, one is from Tunisia, one is from Algeria and two are from Egypt. Currently, there are no GMs south of the Sahara in what is commonly known as "Black Africa." That is until Amon Simutowe earns his last norm or Watu Kobese earns two more.

There are rumours of there being other Black GMs. They are not from Africa, but of African ancestry in Latin America. Pontus Carlsson, who just earned his 3rd GM norm was born in Columbia and raised in Sweden, but there have been strong Latin American players for decades... especially Cuba. More research is being done in this regard, but Maurice Ashley is (AT LEAST) the first Black Grandmaster in America and certainly deserves a place in history. He is much more than a Black Grandmaster, but a true ambassador of chess. How many Grandmasters can say that?

Hi Daaim!
Thanks for a very informative post. My apologies for any inaccuracies in my response to Ben Finegold that you detected.

"In Africa, they DO have those classifications... Europe does too. Why would you present such inaccurate statements? I would agree that racial politics differ and there is not as much emphasis placed in these issues as we find in America. Racial politics has dominated American history and have shaped its development."

I base my comments on my time in Kenya, Tanzania and Zanzibar. I did not hear anyone use the classifications of chess players you mention in any official capacity. It doesn't mean the classifications you mention are not used of course just I wasn't aware of it happening. I am more than happy to update my knowledge base in the light of your comments. A friend of mine has just returned from a year in Uganda working with refugees for MSF but alas she's not a chessplayer! Are the categories you listed recognized by FIDE and the USCF?

"Maurice Ashley is (AT LEAST) the first Black Grandmaster in America and certainly deserves a place in history. He is much more than a Black Grandmaster, but a true ambassador of chess. How many Grandmasters can say that?"

Heartily agree!...I especially like Ashley's campaign against phoney draws!...I think he has organized tournaments to reflect this(?)...I don't live in USA so am not as well informed as could be.
I put in an answer to Ben Finegold's plea as some time had elapsed and no local ie USA player had responded.
Cheers and thanks again for the useful info!

dysgraphia

I am not going to go on and on here. arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, etc.

my "whining" is simply a response to the outcry on this board everytime a GM plays a short draw. I will always contend that the "fans" are owed nothing. chess mas many fans, but very few paying customers. fans contribute zero income. poker and darts have the potential to have some temporary television appeal because they are very simple to understand. chess is not. sorry for my negativity (I call it reality). I will gladly post that I was wrong when chess becomes the next television sensation.

Maurice Ashley doesn't deserve "a place in history", even if we only talk chess history, not as a player (a sub-2500, being inactive for the last 5 years) or an organizer (one tournament). He himself being a modest man would cringe in embarrassment at being called "a true ambassador of chess" Titles like this are usually reserved for people like Korchnoi or Miles.
Prof. Shabazz needs to cool off his Afro-centric rhetorics, as more than one thread here became polluted with his statements, both pompous and inaccurate. I see this as an unfortunate side effect of one Chess Life article combined with the euphoria from the #42 day.

An ambassador of chess? How many young chess players worldwide would even know who he is? Only a hardcore chess fan would be able to recognise the name really.

Hi fluffy,

"I am not going to go on and on here. arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, etc."

Excellent policy!

"my "whining" is simply a response to the outcry on this board everytime a GM plays a short draw."

I am new on this board so I will take your word for this.
Short AGREED draws bug me, short fighting draws are a much different beast.

"I will always contend that the "fans" are owed nothing. chess mas many fans, but very few paying customers. fans contribute zero income. "

Quite the contrary. There are a great many fans who buy chess books and other paraphenalia, pay for lessons, enter swisses with big name players (ie donate to the prize fund), directly donate to appeals such as for Olympiads, pay to play in simuls etc etc. At least some of this money finds it way back to the chess professionals.

"poker and darts have the potential to have some temporary television appeal because they are very simple to understand. chess is not."

Potential? Temporary television appeal of poker? I wonder.

"sorry for my negativity (I call it reality)."

Your reality may be tainted with Americo-centrism?
Chess appears to be a *relative* backwater in USA. In other places it is moving ahead eg India, China, Asia Minor. [As an aside I just saw a tv golf report about how in Shanghai two or three years ago there were 2 golf courses, now there are 25.
Who ever thought of China as a power in world golf?...not yet of course but with such rapid proliferation of courses it is likely. Things do change in other competitions and at times at breathtaking speed: why not for chess?]

" I will gladly post that I was wrong when chess becomes the next television sensation."

It won't happen overnight. Other sports/competition took many years of work and dedication to get to the "overnight sensation" category.
I think chess has been hindered by excess baggage partly from FIDE, partly a carryover from the Soviet-era of state control of players, partly the failings of leading players to take the lead.
The model for a successful tv product has yet to be formulated. All the ingredients are there, just we don't seem to find a good recipe and an honest cook.

Cheers and thanks for the discussion!

dysgraphia

this was not a "discussion", so please do not thank me. I was simply defending GM's rights to draw however they choose in open tournaments while absorbing the namecalling of the know-it-all nonpaying spectators.

Yermo,

Your comments are surprising, but not surprising.

You have some serious issues.

Non-professional chess players do indeed contribute to the income of chess professionals -- indeed, we are probably the primary "sponsors" for the vast majority of all GMs and IMs below say, the world top 100 (i.e., the low 2600 range and below).

But dysgraphia is still wrong, nonetheless. Because when we pay for a chess book, or a lesson, or a simul, or entry in a tournament, we quite explicitly and obviously are NOT paying to be a spectator. What we are paying for is the opportunity to work at improving our own chess, or to actually play.

There is nothing to argue about here; the preceding sentence is not a matter of interpretation, just a simple unvarnished fact.

So dysgraphia is simply mistaken. Even by his own standard, mere "fans" (i.e. pure spectators) contribute nothing; so they are owed nothing.

Hi Jon,

"But dysgraphia is still wrong, nonetheless. Because when we pay for a chess book, or a lesson, or a simul, or entry in a tournament, we quite explicitly and obviously are NOT paying to be a spectator. What we are paying for is the opportunity to work at improving our own chess, or to actually play."

We seem to be at cross purposes?
I was not referring to paying spectators. Nor restricting "fans" to only paying spectators. I can be a fan of Kramnik, say, but never get to ever see him play as a spectator due to geographic impediment etc.

"So dysgraphia is simply mistaken. Even by his own standard, mere "fans" (i.e. pure spectators) contribute nothing; so they are owed nothing."

Wow!...now Jon!...you define "fans" as spectators then accuse me of being wrong on the basis of your narrow and restrictive definition of what you claim I think "fans" are! Very droll!
Are you in politics?...(grin)...can we do smiley's here on this blog?
Of course "fans" encompass much more than mere spectators. The various ways fans' money can percolate through to pro chessplayers I have previously listed.

fluffy,

"this was not a "discussion", so please do not thank me. I was simply defending GM's rights to draw however they choose in open tournaments while absorbing the namecalling of the know-it-all nonpaying spectators."

Point taken. I withdraw my thanks.

I wasn't sure when I posted if Mark Bluvshtein is still active, but he recently came equal first in the "First Saturday" tournament in Budapest, undefeated on 8/11.

Dirt contributor Pete Doggers played in the IM A section and (if I understand the rules correctly) got an FM norm.

"Dirt contributor Pete Doggers played in the IM A section and (if I understand the rules correctly) got an FM norm."

The FM title is not norm-based; ergo, there is no such thing as an FM norm.

That low-level title was norm-based when first introduced in the 1970s or early 1980s. But FIDE changed the rules soon afterward, making the FM title depend only on achieving a FIDE rating above 2300 on any official (i.e. published) rating list, and paying the required fee to claim the title.

Inter alia, a great many people meet the first criterion but not the second.

Perhaps Doggers achieved an IM norm? I presume that's what people are going for when they compete in the IM A section.

OK. I thought the requirement was to achieve a certain rating performance over a certain number of games, but that must have been the old rules. (For some reason, I remembered the required rating as being 2350, not 2300).

His performance rating for the tournament was 2352, which is very respectable, but considerably short of an IM norm.

The tournament is indeed intended to help players achieve IM norms, but they need a good result to qualify; in fact, the only IM norm achieved was by the winner of the B section, with a score of 8/10.