Caruana Rocking the HZ

You missed the story, Mig. IM Marie Sebag, who's ahead of Caruana on tiebreaks, beat both Kasimjanov and Krasenkow. With a tournament performance rating of 2697, she could get a GM norm. I think she's still a junior. (In any event she's more photogenic than Fabiano.)

What is the last time a woman (apart from Judit) beat two former 2700+ player in the same tournament ?

Sorry Paul - looks like you missed the "final" story. Caruana won the last round to finish the tournament with 7 points, winning clear first, ahead of Kasim. Marie drew the last round and finish 5th.

http://www.hztoernooi.nl/index_en.html

One tournament, one "story". Them is the rules, folks.

Round 9 still to be played: Kasim will be white against Caruana. Since Kasim is trailing by 0,5 point he's got a good shot to win the whole thing.

Round 9 still to be played: Kasim will be white against Caruana. Since Kasim is trailing by 0,5 point he's got a good shot to win the whole thing.

PS. If this was posted twice it is because the first submission gave an 'Internal error' or something.

I guess I got fooled by the word "Final" on the page with results :-(

Tivi won the 9th round and has 7.5 points now. Caruana vs Kasim looks like a marathon draw with opposite color bisops with Kasim having an extra pawn...

last round, Caruana holds against Kasim and is joint first with Tiviakov, Appel and DeJong. Caruana is first on tiebreak.

At www.chessvibes.com there are some nice reports on this tournament. The editor played there and did some blogging along the way.

Hi,

This is definitely a message off topic, but I considered the following interview with Hans-Walter Schmitt posted in Chessbase

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4046

Besides his interesting (and very logical in this chaotic chess world) opinions, it surprised me to see the current state of things towards the next Chess Olympiad in Dresden, specially because Germany is a country with strong tradition of organizing chess events and a lot of Chess Grandmasters living there. If that happens in Germany, what do we expect in the rest of the world?

Hi,

This is definitely a message off topic, but I considered the following interview with Hans-Walter Schmitt posted in Chessbase

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4046

Besides his interesting (and very logical in this chaotic chess world) opinions, it surprised me to see the current state of things towards the next Chess Olympiad in Dresden, specially because Germany is a country with strong tradition of organizing chess events and a lot of Chess Grandmasters living there. If that happens in Germany, what do we expect in the rest of the world?

I still don't get why we see all these random posts about Chess960. Can't we just admit that none of us who post here have really scratched the surface of understanding chess the way it is?!

'stendec' wrote:
{I still don't get why we see all these random posts about Chess960. Can't we just admit that none of us who post here have really scratched the surface of understanding chess the way it is?!
}

By that reasoning, one would be forced to conclude that the Checkers (Draughts) world made a mistake when in 1900 they switched to the 2-Move opening rule (roughly analogous to chess960 / FRC).

Yet there is almost universal agreement that the 2-Move rule was a major improvement. Indeed, in 1930 they extended to the 3-Move rule.

The 3-Move rule is good even though most non-expert checkers players never become experts in checkers.

Gene,
I know you mean well, but the analogy doesn't make sense. The 3-move rule is better compared to theme tournaments where participants can not necessarily play their favorite openings. Besides, why try to complicate a game that you are only a class player at? I could be wrong, but are you just avoiding the work to get better by concluding that the problem is flawed in its current form? I dunno, maybe you really have grown by leaps and bounds by studying Chess960 positions--I haven't tried so I can't say that it doesn't help...

stendec - "Besides, why try to complicate a game that you are only a class player at? I could be wrong, but are you just avoiding the work to get better by concluding that the problem is flawed in its current form?"

brilliant! What these people who bash real chess because they don't realise is that if they don't do the work in fake chess, they'll still be beaten by those who do. If fake chess does take over the world they will be the first to complain that it's a cr@p game because they lose to people who work harder.

However, I think that playing chess while juggling is obviously a better game, because I can play chess and I can juggle. I'll be able to beat all those who can't juggle, so therefore that is the best game ever.

Down with real chess! Down with chess 960!

Huh??

I am trying to google 2-move rule and all I can find is a link to another Gene post. Can somebody explain it to me? it sounds interesting.

Not related to this thread but I don't understand how chess can have two 'invited' players in the $400,000 Grand Slam Cup (or whatever they call that Bilbao event). The other four have to win a 'major' in order to get in and two guys get a free ride. It is one thing having a lucky loser enter a round of 128 and quite another having two guys hand-picked in a 6-player 'biggest-of-bigs' event. Chess politics sucks :(

Yuriy, I think the 2-move (and 3-move) rules in checkers require each game to start with a particular (presumably randomly drawn) sequence of moves, from a list of allowed openings. This was apparently adopted because checkers openings had been analyzed to the point where certain ones were known to be clearly and undeniably better than others -- so every game would follow a certain sequence if players were allowed their choice. (By analogy with chess, people like Capablanca and later Fischer proposed to tackle a similar perceived problem -- or in my opinion, an "imagined problem" -- by randomly varying not the opening moves, but the initial position. So although Stendec is technically correct that the analogy isn't exact, he's going too far when he says the analogy "doesn't make sense.")

Proposal for new title: The Couple Times a Week Dirt Chess Blog

Anand speaking in a video interview

http://www.chessdom.com/news/anand-mainz

He certainly is my favorite for Mainz. There we will see his deep understanding of chess.

stendec wrote:
{... why try to complicate a game that you are only a class player at? I could be wrong, but are you just avoiding the work to get better ...
}

Bobby Fischer said chess960 (FRC) is about fixing broken chess, but I do not say that. Chess960 is about letting these pieces on this board breathe.

There are rich veins of position types in chess960 that never occur in traditional chess: why are those positions uninteresting and of no value?

The other 959 initial setups each have their own universe of opening strategies, tactics, and traps that have yet to be explored. Why is the way too common B-N5 tactic cool, and the Bf1c4 & Ng1f3g5 tactic to pressure f7 cool, but all the other tactical ideas latent in the other 959 setups uncool?

If I gave you a set of early middle game positions from traditional chess, next to a set from chess960, you would have no trouble determining which set came from which rule set.
That distinguishability is telling us something.

Ok, I know this is off-topic, but: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4048 Great idea... however! does this mean if, say, Anand Wins Corus he's not allowed to play in Linares? Otherwise Anand has taken 2 qualifying spots.

Back on topic, congratulations to GM Caruana.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack this thread -- but has anyone seen this?

http://site.wcbo.org/content/e14/index_en.html

Chessboxing. It doesn't look that new, but it does appear serious. Perhaps Vlad and Ves could settle their differences old school style...

Gene,

I don't doubt that different starting positions produce different middle games. I also don't doubt that there may be some value to studying FRC positions. My question is whether spending energy on random positions is more valuable to chess players than studying "traditional" positions. I think that beauty in chess is found the deeper you dig. I still get chessically excited when I play through Capablanca's classic R+P endgames, or Fischer's R+B+P endgames. I could spend the rest of my natural life sucking the truth out of a few dozen endgames. It just seems that those who do not want to dig in and work tend to suffer from sour grapes.

I feel odd defending a chess variant, and even odder defending a 1400 player's view that 960/FRC can promote higher-level understanding of real chess....Yet from reading Gene's earlier posts here and elsewhere, he actually makes a surprisingly strong case.

Stendec, there should be little difference in the type of classic endgames that will result from 960/FRC openings, vs. those that arise out of the standard opening position. The influence of the initial position dissipates the more material is reduced. So the argument posed in your latest comment is irrelevant; it looks to me like someone aiming to get strong at FRC would have as much interest in studying those classic Capa and Fischer endgames as someone striving to understand more of traditional chess. Differing pawn structures may persist beyond the middlegame, but when you get down as far as R+3 vs R+2, or R+B+3 vs R+N+2, what makes you think these would be affected by the position the game started from?

You might also be interested to know that Mecking said he got strong from studying literally "random" positions. Growing up in Brazil in the 1950s-60s, he had no decent opposition to practice with. So he studied by placing pieces randomly on a board and hunting out all the tactics he could find.

And Larry Kaufman once attributed his sudden surge from 2300 to 2500+ IM (achieved while in his 30s or 40s, as I recall), to giving up chess for Shogi for a time, and then coming back. And don't forget that world Shogi champ who made an IM norm in the World Open last year, I think it was, despite having relatively little experience of chess.

Thinking out of the box helps, it seems. (Of course, I recognize that's a small sample that could well reflect little more than the special talents of those three individuals.)

I have no sympathy for Gene's point that traditional chess is "broken" and needs fixing. Nevertheless, I do think that more attention to thinking out of the box could improve any chess player's understanding of all types of chess situations -- middlegames, tactics, and positional themes -- analogues of which might sometimes unexpectedly arise even in games that began from the traditional initial position.

I'm sure you're right that amateurs like us have far more to gain from studying only "regular" chess. But I appreciate Gene's argument that the collective level of chess understanding could be raised by top players also exploring middlegame set-ups that arise from FRC.

Gene posts a lot, in a lot of places, and is always a gentleman. So it isn't wise to tar him as motivated by "sour grapes." That might be Fischer's motivation, but it's unfair to ascribe it to Gene.

Jon,

Hmmm, I don't think I ever said that traditional endgames were irrelevant in FRC. My point was that none of us will be disappointed by studying chess the way it is without adding more unnecessary opening complications. The exact point is made by "al" above.

And, sure, calling the situation "sour grapes" may be a little harsh, but it is not as harsh as exposing the authors playing strength in juxtaposition with his claims to Chess960's effects.

Some disturbing details about Caruana and how he started, from comments at SP's blog:

"There once was a father who has been manipulating his son's ratings for some time. Looking at the boy's USCF tournament history, people saw his father was the associated TD. To enter those results into the USCF system a fee must be paid. ... Basically, if the boy had a bad result, it would not get entered. This -in turn- popped the boy's ratings high enough to qualify his participation in norm gaining tournaments."

More of it here:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=13118012&postID=2246133371537052507

Then Fabiano makes GM norms at First Saturday, which is a fine event, but... and I'll stop here since I haven't asked the GMs of those tournaments. Yet.

Anyway, he must be a talented and dedicated boy, and his father seems dedicated, too. Just not so nice to start out with something like this.

To repeat, Fischer says traditional chess is broken, but I do *NOT* say that.

Nor am I bothering to claim that studying chess960 will make you a stronger player of traditional chess -- those words have been put into my mouth by others.

*** I am saying that chess960 produces a broader variety of early middle game positions that does traditional chess.
Any player who bothers to test this will also find he can distinguish between groups of positions from chess960 vs. traditional chess.

These refreshing positions can interest chess players and chess spectators (who replay published master games).

- - - - - - - - -

Obviously chess960 produces a vastly richer variety of opening phase positions than does traditional chess. Among these setups, the relative value or truth of accepted opening chess principles probably varies!
The effects of less knight opposition being inherent in most non-traditional setups is just one of several angles that chess960 finally illuminates.

In all of chess, the other 959 setups are the last huge undiscovered territory ripe for human study.

To be fair, after reading GeneM's website about his book, he makes a statements that makes me wonder. He states "The rate of middle game principle refinement would have been faster had chess960 been in vogue the past two centuries." I wonder if this might be true...

Linux fan, didn't your teachers tell you, don't believe everything you read?

I see the item you quoted has been deleted from Polgar's blog, and for good reason. It was a complete fabrication, as any reader who checks Caruana's MSA records will see (as I just did).

Going back even to Fabiano's elementary school days, all 700 or so tournaments listed there were run by legitimate organizers (CCA, LI Chess Nuts, Chess Center of NY, Marshall Chess Club, US Open, National Elementary, etc.) with legitimate, well-known TDs. I saw no mention of the boy's father in the TD field, unless his father happens to be Steve Immitt, Larry Tamarkin, Joel Salman, Polly P. Wright, Carol Jarecki, etc.

Dear Jon, I don't believe anything. I don't even believe in moderation of blog comments.

...But since I was the one to bring this subject up, I just looked into the MSA records. I don't know if it occured to you that Fabiano has a lot of 'half point byes', especially in tournaments where he makes a rating jump.

Here he goes from 1869 to 1883 and gets two of those H's:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200107286240-12743305

Here from 1984 to 2004, again with two H's:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200109218420-12743305

I will spare the DD from linking all the records where he gets half point byes. There are a lot.

Is getting a H a normal routine at USCF events?

Linux,

Fabiano started playing tournaments at a very young age. In order to not have the kid be worn out by playing two rounds per day, it was a regular thing for him to take half-point byes at the Marshall events. This was especially true of events that ended late on weeknights, for obvious reasons. It is not at all an uncommon practice for people to take half-point byes in local club events here, whether so that they could do other things during the day (I took a byes in early Saturday rounds of weekend tournaments so that I could coach at scholastic events and still participate) or so that they could get home at a reasonable hour. Maybe there was some protecting of rating points involved in decision-making, but many players do this by withdrawing from events after they gain the points they need anyway.

Hotep,

Maliq

Maliq is exactly right. Note also the names of the organizers and TDs of the two tournaments cited in Linux fan's link; no reason to suspect hanky-panky there.

At least Linux fan tacitly admits by posing the question at the end of her last post, that her M.O. is to shoot first and ask questions later. (That's my polite characterization; "blasts accusatory comments while freely admitting she doesn't know what she's talking about," would less kind, but more accurate.)

If you know you need help interpreting the context, wouldn't it be wiser to ask your question first -- and adopt a humble and apologetic tone, rather than an unjustifiably self-assured and accusatory one?

Jon, I'm sure you can handle my self-assured posts as they are, you're a tough-hearted, experienced man.
The comments at SP's blog don't sound like something fabricated. (Google cache still has them, if anyone whats to check it out.) I mentioned them here because I found it interesting as yet another chess related overambitious father-case. It's not even about Fabiano.

Hotep: "Fabiano started playing tournaments at a very young age."

Age 9-10 is not very young for playing 5 or 6 rounds in short succession. The Polgar sisters were playing in 24 hour blitz marathons at this age.

"Maybe there was some protecting of rating points involved in decision-making, but many players do this by withdrawing from events after they gain the points they need anyway."

Sounds crazy to have a kid do this. What about teaching them sportsmanship instead of getting higher ratings?

whats = wants

Troll alert: readers, please disregard comments from Linux fan, who just showed she is intent on having the last word even if it means repeating earlier statements that were just proven false via concrete evidence presented in this same thread (i.e., her repeating the implication that Caruana's father somehow manipulated how his tournament results were reported). Not to mention her repeating the ignorant assertion that there's something unsportsmanlike about taking half-point byes or withdrawing from an open tournament, for any reason (as long as you inform the TD before you've been paired for the next round).

Jon, you're too funny.

Just one more correction: instead of Maliq I wrote Hotep. I should've written 'Peace', too.

LF--

1) Maliq abandoned his "Peace" salutation a few weeks ago.

2) In future postings, please try to emulate Jon: humble and apologetic when need be, never unjustifiably self-assured or accusatory.

For Jon, "sportsmanship" means adhering to the rules. LF's more interesting use of the word refers to playing chess not for the rating points but for the game itself.

To instantly label as a "troll" an individual who a) posts links in support of claims made and
b) raises interesting questions respecting the nature of sportsmanship appears overdone, if not just a tad on the hysterical side.

Greg, you failed to follow your usual scholarly bent here.

To say that LF "posts links in support of claims made" is like saying Danailov documents his accusations by releasing statistics and video evidence (i.e., technically true, but substantively ludicrous.)

The first link she posted quoted uncritically from an anonymous post that got deleted from the blog it first appeared on (no doubt because it was libelous, not to mention transparently false, as I demonstrated with evidence above, and as anyone else can quickly verify by glancing at Caruana's publicly available MSA record).

The second links she posted contained "evidence" only that Caruana has taken half-point byes, as just about all of us have from time to time. She acknowledged being unsure of the significance of this "evidence" within the same post where she put the link. Yet, even after two highly knowledgeable readers (myself and Maliq, who both play in many of the same tournaments she linked to) gave assurances that the behavior she complained about was entirely innocent and indeed commonplace, she persisted in portraying it as somehow underhanded.

And yes, Maliq is absolutely correct that young kids typically take those H byes more frequently than most other players. Caruana played in a great many Thursday night G-30 and NY Masters' tournaments (also held on weekday evenings), and I'm pretty sure he was younger than 9 or 10 when he started.

School-age players like Alec Getz and Ben Gershenov routinely took byes in round 4 (and sometimes in round 3) when playing in weeknight events whose final round often doesn't end before midnight. Alex Lenderman used to do that all the time when he was younger, too.

I'd think, Greg, you would save your criticism for people who post ill-informed negative comments about chess players or their parents (whether prominent ones like Caruana, or not).

When discussing academic subjects, I never saw you take such a laissez-faire approach (i.e., treating all ideas as equally worthy of expression, educated and uneducated alike).

LF posted tables showing Fabiano took half-point byes in half his games in two tournaments.

Highly knowledgeable poster Maliq concedes that "maybe there was some protecting of rating points involved" in Fabiano's accumulation of half-point byes.

Someone who values the game of chess more than the rating-points gained by playing it may therefore be allowed to criticize Fabiano's rating-motivated byes. (If that's what they are.)

There does appear to be some "buzz" suggesting irregularities in the reporting of Fabiano's tournament results. If there's something to it, we'd all be interested in hearing about it.

LF, Maliq, and Jon: sorry to have gotten involved in your brawl. I'm going back under my bridge.

I once knew a young player whose father took an unusually active interest in his chess career. When Junior began a tournament well, Father would take him out to protect his rating gains. When he started poorly, Father would take him out to cut his losses.

Eventually, they gave up the game because there didn't seem to be very much money in it.

Linux, surely, you do not suggest that playing 24-hour marathon events is good for ANYBODY, much less young children! Please, some rational thought is in order here! YES, those many rounds in one day is a lot for a kid. Hell, grown players are exhausted after playing two long games per day at the World Open or 4 short games in events that end at midnight. Your comments make me skeptical of whether you have ever been a serious tournament player, and I am quite certain that you have never been a coach if you so grossly misjudge the parameters of common development for young players.

As for rating protection, first, players of ALL ages and levels do this; it is not at all uncommon, especially now that people can calculate their approximate USCF rating to the minute after each round and determine where they would likely land if they withdrww at that point and go shopping instead. Ratings carry special significance for young children in the U.S. because of the possibility of being selected for some international tournaments based on rank position on age lists for designated rating supplements. If, for example, a young kid who is about 2000 defeats an IM in round 2 of an event, it is not unwise to avoid having to protect those points against a 2200 player the next round, since the possibility of giving back some of the gains is high. There is nothing unethical about holding onto points one earns, especially since a rating's ONLY true function is to measure how well a person has performed in games played in the past.

Hotep,

Maliq

I wouldn't so blithely defend rating management as Maliq does (although I wouldn't jump on it with axes and machine guns either, the way a few out-of-the-loop commenters did above).

Most significant, a careful reading of this thread documents that LF and (to a lesser degree) koster raced to pronounce Caruana guilty of withdrawing or taking byes to preserve rating points, without a shred of evidence regarding his actual motivation. As noted, there are several perfectly good reasons why children and adults alike often choose to skip one or more rounds of weekday-evening (and other) events.

That's the sort of "thinking" I chided greg for in my previous post. (Greg defended LF for providing links showing that Caruana took byes as "evidence" that Caruana manipulated his rating. That's a lot like showing a video of someone drinking a glass of milk and then driving to work, and claiming you've produced photographic evidence that the guy was drinking and driving.)

"I am trying to google 2-move rule and all I can find is a link to another Gene post. Can somebody explain it to me? it sounds interesting."

Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at August 14, 2007 09:09

Yes

http://usacheckers.com/chamblee.php

The Opening by Maurice Chamblee, from Checkers and the Experts (1949) edited and typed by Jim Loy

Understanding the opening is the first important step on the road to success in checkers, but oddly enough a neglected study for a majority of beginners. The reader's closest attention is therefore invited to the methods and concepts presented herein.

The Development of the Modern Style of Play:

Three Move Restriction

The Go-As-You-Please Era (1838-1863) -- Although the game was popular in Great Britain prior to 1838, the first book published in English dating back to 1756 (Payne), the first period in the development of the game is generally associated with James Wyllie, sometimes called the "father of draughts." Between the ten year period ending in 1847, Wyllie played five matches with Andrew Anderson, the strongest player of his time. Wyllie lost the first four matches, and won the last, which proved him to be a much stronger player. The Herd Laddie, as he was called, did more in his time to popularize the game than any other man in the history of the game.
The period between 1838 and 1863 resulted in a vast exploration of the go-as-you-please openings, such authors as Drummond and Anderson hastening the development. It was inevitable therefore that the system used would in time become inadequate for serious competition. When in 1863, James Wyllie and Robert Martins played the same game 21 times in a 40 game match, it became apparent to all that a restriction was needed to broaden the scope of playable openings and to prevent recurrence of the Wyllie vs. Martins stalemate. A new system was needed to prevent the players from adhering to the same old lines of play in important contests.

The Two Move Era (1863-1929) -- Under the Two Move Restriction, a total of 43 out of the possible 49 openings, based on black's seven opening moves and white's seven replies, were adopted for serious competitive play. Of the six openings eliminated, two were obviously losses (9-14 21-17 and 10-14 21-17), the other four openings barred openings as they are sometimes refered to, were at the time considered unplayable, i.e., 11-16 23-19; 12-16 23-19; 9-14 23-18; and 10-14 23-18. (editor: the players play two games, both sides of an opening chosen at random)

During this second period of the game's development, two international matches were played between America and Great Britain, as well as countless number of matches involving such greats of the board as James Ferrie, Richard Jordan, Robert Stewart, Charles F. Barker, Alfred Jordan, Sam Gonotsky, Newell Banks, not mentioning numerous others. This system too was in time to become inadequate. The point was soon to be reached after which Two Move Restriction would fail to produce a sufficiency of wins in tournament play. A protracted heat between Asa Long and Victor Townsend in the 5th ACA tournament (1922) resulted in a 22 game no-decision. Later in 1928, Sam Gonotsky and Mike Lieber played a 40 game match resulting in 40 draws! The final blow came in the 7th ACA tournament (1929) as a result of a protracted heat between Edwin F. Hunt and H. B. Reynolds. After this incident, the popularity of the Two Move Restriction vanished in the United States, although the English and Scottish Draughts Associations have continued to recognize two move as the tournament style of play. Three Move Restriction (1934-) -- The Modern Style of Play -- Prior to the 8th ACA tournament in 1934, a project was started to investigate the tenability of the various three move openings. A friendly series of games between Asa Long and Edwin Hunt, resulting in a tie, did much toward moving this project along. Finally, 138 three move openings were chosen upon the recommendation of a special committee, and were used for the first time in the 8th ACA tournament. Of this 138, two of the so-called barred openings were included (9-14 23-18 and 10-14 23-18), having been found as perfectly tenable openings. Since that time, only one of the 138 openings has been found unsound for practical play, the opening being 10-15 22-17 9-14. This refutation came about through the efforts of Wm. Ryan, who submitted the winning play to the rules committee at the 9th ACA tournament (1937), whereupon the opening was eliminated from the list.

"Not related to this thread but I don't understand how chess can have two 'invited' players in the $400,000 Grand Slam Cup (or whatever they call that Bilbao event). The other four have to win a 'major' in order to get in and two guys get a free ride. It is one thing having a lucky loser enter a round of 128 and quite another having two guys hand-picked in a 6-player 'biggest-of-bigs' event. Chess politics sucks :( "

Posted by: Anand Nair at August 14, 2007 11:05

Good point! And if a certain Bulgarian GM somehow fails to win one the 4 "Grand Slam" events (even the one to be held in Sofia, Bulgaria)? One wonders who Silvio Danailov would choose to be one of the lucky players to receive a wild card invitation?

Jon, don't you get the feeling that with the energy you're investing in this thread you could've saved an entire orphanage?

Here is Lou Caruana, father of Fabiano, talking about a father's task. I'm quoting it just for you.

"But it was one of the few times that Fabiano had played against children his own age. His father, Lou Caruana, 56, said they had considered not competing. Players reach a point where they have to be selective about what games to play, he said. Losing one would hurt your international rating as a chess player, and that is taxing on fathers.
'It's always stressful,' Mr. Caruana said. 'It never stops.'"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02EEDF153EF934A25756C0A9659C8B63

Someone ought to tell Henrik Carlsen about this. Magnus should be banned from dangerous events like Arctic Chess Challenge.

Maliq: no, 24-hour blitz marathons are great fun, you should try it. Getting half a point for going shopping, on the other hand, is a disastrous way of socializing a child.

Good article. Good thing they corrected the Fischer/Pandolfini mistake, too; I cracked up when I saw that in the regular story text.

So what is your point, Linux? That a talented kid should devote their every waking hour to chess to satisfy your loopy ideas about the way things ought to be? Or, that no kid should ever take chess that seriously that he'd stop playing in elementary school events once he hits 2100 (or wherever Fabiano was rated when that article was written), or let his father make the choice for him?

This might be a good place to mention that a different family's efforts to propel their child's chess career, was one of a group of case studies that comprised my master's thesis. Just in case my spending so many keystrokes arguing with a provocateur (I'll avoid the t-word this time) is making anyone wonder if I've thought deeply about these issues before.

Linuxfan's point's pretty clear, surely, JJ? She doesn't think regarding sudden half-point byes as a valid tactic to 'protect a child's rating' is either sportsmanlike or good for a child's education in the broader sense. Nor do I. Obviously playing two rounds and making a pre-programmed withdrawal because it's late and there's school tomorrow is different.

Funny, I played in an event here a week or two ago where a promising junior was taken ill shortly before a game with a GM. The organisers wanted to abort the game (the nature of the event was such that this was possible) but the boy replied that he didn't get to play GMs very often and he'd sooner play, so long as he could have a bucket by the board. I don't know what the GM thought of the kid retching into the bucket from time to time, but anyway they played and the GM won a sharp struggle. A much more propoer attitude.

Interesting to hear that the US operates a policy of selecting juniors strictly according to rating. Very characteristic. The US loves these rigid methods of selection, which lead to absurdities like the present one, but which cannot be criticised for unfairness. Bit like their policy of picking their Olympic athletes by the first three over the line on one day, disregarding injuries, falls on the day, and so forth. This has led to several Olympic champions being unable to defend their titles, including I think even Michael Johnson after a bout of food poisoning in the trials (actually I think at the time he was merely the world number one).

rdh - Bit like their policy of picking their Olympic athletes by the first three over the line on one day, disregarding injuries, falls on the day, and so forth. This has led to several Olympic champions being unable to defend their titles, including I think even Michael Johnson after a bout of food poisoning in the trials (actually I think at the time he was merely the world number one).

I think the down side of this policy is that someone who could or probably should win the major event may fail to qualify. On the other, the pressure is much greater in the US trials (screw up once and you're out) and this can only be good preparation for the bigger events ahead. You see fewer American athletes bottling big Track and field events than those from other nations who may assume they will get selected regardless of performance in trials. e.g. Paula Radcliffe, Colin Jackson and other Britons who have underperformed at the Olympics.

The example you quoted does rob the general public of the chance to see the likes of Johnson at the highest level, so I'm not sure what the solution is. however, I do think it is much less clear cut than you make it.

So rdh, you've joined the "write-before-you-think-or-read" club, too??

What's LF putting in the tea she's serving you people -- first the normally thoughtful greg k, now rdh....sounds like some kind of brainwashing tool is afoot, no?

rdh, please read the NY Times story that LF linked, and show me where it supports the idea that Caruana took half-point byes to protect rating? The quote from his dad is about how it was a tough choice whether to enter the then 10-year-old 2150-player in the National Elementary School championship, because of the high risk of losing rating points when everyone you'll play is 300+ points lower rated. (He ended up entering anyway; the story doesn't say he took any byes.)

Do you similarly feel that Karjakin or Lautier (or Short or McShane, if they were that strong when that young) had a duty to keep competing in his country's Elementary School Championship every year until he aged out?

What's that you say? You didn't bother to read the linked Times story before you posted your last comment? Well, then a little mea culpa is warranted, don't you think?

After all, you wouldn't want the editors who pay for your chess columns to get the idea you couldn't be bothered to analyze the Dutch Defense before you write theoretical articles about it, or that you couldn't be bothered to interview Anand before writing up his thoughts...now would you?

Come to think of it, find me anything anywhere in this entire thread that supports the idea that Fabiano ever took byes to protect rating. Seems that ethical problem (with rrespect to Caruana at least) exists nowhere but in LF's fevered imagination.

And for that matter, does that even have anything to do with the hypothetical that you then went on to give in your own comment? From what I know about Fabiano, he probably also would have opted to play a GM even if he was sick. (In one breath you condemn "protecting rating points," and in the next you speak of a sick kid's moral obligation to play a GM. Very consistent.)

Also I find the super-macho attitude on your part puzzling. Aren't we chess people intelligent enough to leave the whole "good players play when they're hurt!" garbage to troglodyte football coaches, where it belongs?

Blimey, Jon, who do you think I am exactly? Not only do I not write books about the Sicilian Dragon: I don't write chess columns either.

I thought Linux's point - by this stage, at any rate, had become a general one. Mine was, certainly.

I don't know about macho. You shouldn't play, say, football when you're hurt because it makes the injury worse. The same doesn't apply to playing chess when you're not feeling so good.

I don't know about inconsistent either. According to Maliq, for example, you'd withdraw if you're weren't feeling well because otherwise you'd stand to lose rating points. My point was that the kid I watched didn't think about that. I'm not sure what you think is inconsistent.

McShane, by the way, was happy enough to go on playing in the Varsity match even when he was playing down by 400 points from his rating of 2650 and had been inactive for six months. Short, of course, would never have done such a thing unless there was money involved. I don't say it's a question of duty, but I find McShane's attitude more appealing, certainly.

There seems to be two factions(Support Caruana, and those who do not support Caruana). Personally, I found it to be an amazing accomplishment to make the rank of GM at such a young age. Yet,there is a problem. Look at the number of games that Fabiano has played(A bunch-one may say excessive). Also, look at the last 5 years of Fabiano's chess activity. Linux has a weak case about Fabiano taking half-point byes to preserve rating(hard to prove and it sounds that Linux has an axe to grind.)Yet, there is a problem with Fabiano playing in international tourneys set up by his father before he attained his norms for both IM and GM. It is a obvious conflict of interest no matter how well-run and free of unethical conduct by his father. If my memory is correct, Fabiano was rated in both federations(USCF and FIDE) for these events.

Joe Veal

PS--To Jon Jacobs, I am not falling into the trap of a rush to judgement about Fabiano. I had followed Fab's progress for a number of years.

rdh,

It doesn't seem that Linux's point had become "a general one", because each successive link she brought up referred specifically to Fabiano (like the NY Times story I cited in my last).

Although you apparently intended to leave Fabiano out of it, while writing my previous comment to you I was still mindful of earlier commenters in this thread who defended LF for posting "evidence" of her imaginary case against the kid; evidence that, as I've already shown, was invariably either made up out of whole cloth (the deleted Polgar-blog posting that alleged his father was somehow involved in running his tournaments), or else was wholly unrelated to her claim that Fabiano took byes to protect rating (the NY Times quote). So if my tone suggested I was holding you guilty by association with specific aspects of Linux's argument that you didn't mean to associate yourself with, forgive me.

I don't see Maliq saying you withdraw when you're sick to protect rating points. They are two separate reasons.

Rating points aside, why would anyone want to play a serious, demanding, perhaps multi-hour chess game, when they're not feeling their best? I can't imagine any professional that would, and I don't see why even amateurs should feel any obligation to play the next round or finish out an event if they don't feel like it. If you can't play your best, why play? The only possible reason I can think of is in a team event, when others are counting on you. But your comments suggest that's not even what you're thinking of.

As for McShane, if he was already 2650 then he'd already made it as a pro in the case you cite. It's nice to see established pros mix it up with us fish by competing in open tournaments (even scholastics, if still in their teens). But in practice many of them don't, and I don't see how anyone can claim they're obligated to.

Anyway, I wasn't referring to pros who already made it, but kids on their way up. Now, it's a fair question whether it's healthy for a family to make all the sacrifices needed to give a talented kid like Caruana his best shot at becoming a full-fledged chess pro. At the same time that Linux took pot-shots at Caruana, she voiced approval (or was she being facetious?) of "the Polgars playing 24-hour blitz marathons." So I'd say Linux is a little confused about whether it's good or bad to devote one's life to chess, and forego so many other things; for her, I guess, the answer depends on her personal feelings toward the particular chess pro she's commenting on.

In Caruana's case, it's obvious from the Times story and elsewhere, that his family made a conscious decision to do all in their power to advance, even push, their son's chess career. Whether that could ever be a wise career choice has been debated ad nauseam on various other threads here, with regard to Nakamura, for instance. (I hesitate to even mention the subject, for fear of drawing the anti-chess goon squad out of their cave.)

But if one allows that it's okay for a whole family to structure their lives around a kid's chess talent when he's that young, then I can't see any reasonable explanation for why you or anyone would consider it somehow unsporting or illegitimate for them to make their decision about entering a particular event, such as an elementary school tournament, based solely on whether they thought it would be good or bad for his chess career (specifically, the presumed goal of reaching GM as quickly as possible).

Once a player has reached a certain level, demonstrated that his talent is real and the goal of becoming a chess pro (whatever that means) is far more than a pipe-dream, isn't it normal, natural and healthy that they should select tournaments and other chess activities to align with that goal? (And if not, why pick on Caruana? I can't imagine that Kasparov, Lautier, Short, or even "everybody-loves-Vishy" -- who also came up as a young prodigy -- pursued their future career any differently while in their formative years.)

Joe Veal: Just what tournaments are you referring to, that Caruana's father supposedly "set up before he attained his norms"?

I looked through several pages of his very lengthy MSA and found none. As noted in my first comment here, everything I found was run by well-known, established orgnizers with TDs who everyone knows.

Since the MSA includes all USCF-rated events, no exceptions, then either I'm overlooking something, or you're wrong that the offending events you seem to know about were USCF as well as FIDE-rated.

In any case, I'm still waiting to see someone cite a specific event to validate the seemingly scurrilous claims about the father's role, which Linux fan mentioned when she raised this whole issue of Caruana's ethics way up in this thread.

What is it I'm missing?

OK, now I see what Joe was referring to. I'd looked at only the US events; the foreign tourneys on Caruana's MSA were high-profile, well-known ones like First Saturday, World Youth, etc., so I saw little reason to look at them until I found a post on Polgar's blog, by the respected TD Polly Wright, that coherently explained the situation.

I doubt that Lou Caruana was involved in running all (indeed, any) of those events where the MSA shows him as "Chief TD." Rather, my guess is he is listed that way because those events got USCF-rated at his request. This is a common procedure: USCF decided years ago it didn't have the manpower to rate events played outside the US, even important ones like Olympiads or Candidates Matches.

In order to allow US players to get credit for their achievements abroad, they set up a procedure in which a particular foreign event can get USCF-rated upon specific request by a USCF-rated player. That probably explains why those events show Lou Caruana as chief TD; he submitted the request to rate various foreign tournaments that Fabiano played in, although he probably wasn't involved in running the tournaments.

The Caruanas moved from New York to Europe around the end of 2004. Prior to that, I see no international events on his MSA.

So it seems the verbal assailants are wrong (again!) when they assert that the way these international events were rated in the US, helped pump up Fabiano Caruana's chess status. He was already over 2300 (USCF) and 2200 (FIDE) at the time his family moved to Italy. So he wouldn't have needed a higher USCF rating to "qualify for norm events." In fact most such events don't require a qualification of any kind, although the entry fee often is higher for players below a certain level (FIDE, not USCF).

Even if it's true that the father submitted only favorable results from foreign tournaments to be rated in the USCF (something we still don't know -- the people asserting that have already shown themselves to have an agenda), it wouldn't have helped him qualify for any invitations, as far as I can tell. Since then he's been living outside the US, playing under a different federation, and rising just as rapidly on the FIDE charts (where his father can't choose which of his events get rated) as on the USCF ones. At this stage, it's his FIDE rating that matters; his USCF rating has had little significance at all ever since he left the US.

If anything, I think the father is to be commended for paying to have the son's foreign events rated in the US even after he left. Otherwise, he could still be sitting at 2320. I wouldn't want to have to face him in an Under-2400 section; would you?

Well, as Linux said, Carlsen's played plenty of tournaments which on the face of it don't promote that goal. I don't think either that she meant to say that the Polgars were playing blitz marathons to improve their chances of becoming GMs, merely that they weren't avoiding doing them because they were too young. I'd guess they did it for the same reason most of us do occasionally - they're a laugh.

McShane is not a pro, by the way. And plenty of pros play when they're sick - hell, even Nigel recently played in pain rather than withdraw from that thing in Canada.

In the comments I made regarding Lou submitting Fabiano's international results for USCF rating wasn't my intent to accuse him of rating manipulation. I think as Jon correctly pointed out, it's more fair to have him with a USCF rating over 2400. (No I would not want to face him in the under 2400 section if I were a contender in that section.) As Jon also correctly pointed out he is playing for Italy now. Even so if he's having these successes on the international stage, don't you think similar rating gains would be made in US events?

I would be more concerned if a US player was only playing in FIDE rated events in Europe and the coach or parent was only submitting events for USCF rating that move that player into a spot to qualify to represent the US in a world championship event. Then I think the federation would have to look at implementing a policy of eliminating these events when determining someone's eligibility for an invitation. They already have limitations on rating points gained through match play.

In the comments I made regarding Lou submitting Fabiano's international results for USCF rating wasn't my intent to accuse him of rating manipulation. I think as Jon correctly pointed out, it's more fair to have him with a USCF rating over 2400. (No I would not want to face him in the under 2400 section if I were a contender in that section.) As Jon also correctly pointed out he is playing for Italy now. Even so if he's having these successes on the international stage, don't you think similar rating gains would be made in US events?

I would be more concerned if a US player was only playing in FIDE rated events in Europe and the coach or parent was only submitting events for USCF rating that move that player into a spot to qualify to represent the US in a world championship event. Then I think the federation would have to look at implementing a policy of eliminating these events when determining someone's eligibility for an invitation. They already have limitations on rating points gained through match play.

P Wright has corrected my concerns about Fab's tourneys abroad--it is something that I did not know. It is an easy error to see somebody listed as Chief TD of an event and assume it to be so. I should of realized the discrepancy with the First Saturday tourney in Budapest(Nagy has run that event for several years.) Fabiano has earned his title and our amazement!!

Joe Veal