Shulman Wins 1st US Ch Title

Agree with your final point as even though I criticize the US Championship and especially the fact that there seems to be zero attempt to stop relatively unplayed draws, many thanks to Frank Berry for his sponsorship.

Regardless of who runs the event (unless it's me of course) it's never going to be perfect and it's always easy to criticize! There will be too many players, too few players, too many short draws, random tiebreaks, not enough money etc.....one or more of those problems are likely to occur until we get sponsorships of hundreds and thousands of dollars.

Who knows where the US Championship would be without his support. Even though the state of the event leaves a lot to be desired (at least it does to me and my feeling of what the US Championship should ideally be), it would really be a disaster if the event didn't exist. Also it costs a lot of money to sponsor this event....tens and tens of thousands of dollars. For a single individual this is a serious sacrifice.

I still believe that if the USCF had even the faintest clue of what they are doing they could EASILY get sponsorship for this event. There is no reason I should be able to get about 33% of what they get for the US Championship for the US Chess League which is in going to be in its fourth year of existence, while exerting relatively minimal effort in doing so.

If they just said to someone....go get some money for the US Championship, and you can keep 10% of it, I just can't see how someone wouldn't be able to raise at least 200-500k. With the history and prestige associated with the tournament I don't see how it should be even the slightest problem. Maybe I'm naive but that's what I truly think if the USCF just knew how to behave in these situations.

As it turned out, the women's championship games were by far the most thrilling part of round 9 (since Shulman, going into round 9 a point ahead of the field, clinched it early with a short draw with Friedel whereby Friedel got his norm and Shulman got his title. This is not to dis either player).

The women's day is covered in Jen Shahade's article here: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8462/456/
Krush led by half a point as the round began, but got into serious trouble against Rohonyan, dropping a piece. Zatonskih meanwhile had gotten the full point against Battsetseg. Rohonyan missed the win and they got into a KRNkr ending, which Krush defended and which was drawn well after 8 PM.

Under the regs, Krush and Zatonskih split the money for first and second but went into a playoff for the title. They swapped wins with white at 15 3, then swapped wins with black at 5 3. The final stage was an Armageddon game, with an innovative plan, similar to something I proposed once (and I think I recall Greg Shahade proposing something like it too, am I wrong?), where player A (chosen randomly) determines the time split, allocating 10 to 12 minutes between the colors as he/she chooses (Black having less time but draw odds) but player B then chooses which color he/she wants. The point is that this is fair to both players, in that A must try to make the split as fair as possible so that A is no worse off no matter what B chooses. This is called a "pie-cutter" method because it corresponds to the fair way for cutting up pies - you cut, I choose. By contrast, in previous Armageddon games, prearranged so that White has 5 minutes and Black has 4, or 7 and 5, or whatever, it might be that one player is left griping that white has too much or too little time and that he or she got the short end of the color draw.

Unfortunately I don't know what the Armageddon time control turned out to be, or who picked it, and it's not in the article (yet). I only know that Krush ended up with white and a good position but apparently lost on time, leaving Zatonskih as the 2008 US Women's Champion.

Greg Shahade wrote:
"If they just said to someone....go get some money for the US Championship, and you can keep 10% of it, I just can't see how someone wouldn't be able to raise at least 200-500k. With the history and prestige associated with the tournament I don't see how it should be even the slightest problem. Maybe I'm naive but that's what I truly think if the USCF just knew how to behave in these situations."

Isn't that the exact platform Susan Polgar/Paul Truong got elected on? I mean, what real chages have taken place so far? Or am I missing the point of it all?

Has anyone else considered that stopping "unplayed draws" has strategic effects and (among other things) discriminates against whoever is in the lead (and would therefore benefit from draws)? While eleven moves is a little bit beyond the pale, forcing players to trot out extra moves and trade pieces before shaking hands seems silly.

If there's nothing to play for, why not play a draw? The solution is to pay for wins; say take the appearance fee money and split it between the participants giving one share per win.

Appearance fees are a joke anyway in a supposedly competitive sport. The PGA Tour bans them, and they're doing alright.

Yes, and in the NFL they should be forced to throw for touchdowns with a 7 point lead.

And in the NBA, they should get shots off in 7 seconds or less with a 6 point lead.

And in Hockey and Soccer, if you're up 1-0, take out the keeper, you need more goals...

Idiots.

And in the NFL / NBA / soccer / golf etc., the fans are PAYING for their entertainment. Or if watching it on free TV, they are at least part of an audience that's attracting substantial amounts of advertising and endorsement dollars (some of which the players receive, under established contractual arrangements).

So one could at least make a case that the audience has some moral right to dictate the terms of the contest.

Chess is the opposite. All these Internet freeloaders who complain about draws remind me of a beggar who, upon receiving a $1 bill from a passer-by, admonishes, "Excuse me, but the minimum contribution is $5!"

It isn't the GM who makes a quick draw to clinch first, who is getting or expecting to get something for nothing.

IT IS YOU, the couch-potato chess fan, talking as though you have some right to be entertained by professional chess players - when in fact they're under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to perform for you at all.

Greg,

I agree in principle, both on the many thanks to Frank Berry and on the confusion over why there is so little outside sponsorship.

I think it may simply come down to a legacy from Fischer and the Cold War. Many titled players I know would be delighted to take government money, but are extremely suspicious (as Fischer was) of corporate money.

Or more accurately I should say they are extremely wary of doing the things that need to be done to provide corporate sponsors with value for their money.

This is understandably reflected in the organisation's attitude, which sets other priorities. So one year the Championship site has excellent bios--but only for about 1/3 of the participants. Another year we get short bios of everyone--but no photos to go with them.

Your USCL, of course, has bios and photos of all players. So I'm not surprised that you're much more effective bringing in sponsorship money. It's not that bios automatically bring in sponsorship. It's that people who understand the value of bios tend to also better understand what sponsors are looking for.

None of this is rocket science, of course. Current books like The Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit (for individuals) and Made Possible By (for organisations) have more than enough practical information in them.

Maybe chessplayers are just too used to buying books and then not reading them? ;)

regards,
Duif

p.s One tiny suggestion for the USCL site: add a way to contact each player. (The contact list can be posted in .pdf format to reduce spam.) Oh, and if it was me, I'd lose the "If you're using Internet Explorer, go away" messages. Since many companies mandate IE, it has a decidely anti-corporate feel.

Jon,

While normally I'd agree that paying fans have the most right to complain, a national championship is something of an exception, at least for those fans who are members of the sanctioning body.

regards,
Duif

Jon,

Another points concerns when you mentioned

"It isn't the GM who makes a quick draw to clinch first, who is getting or expecting to get something for nothing"

Of course, a quick draw is never the product of a single player. It's not only Shulman, but the other player (and actually, more the other player) in each instance who "made the draw".

Duif,

"One tiny suggestion for the USCL site: add a way to contact each player. (The contact list can be posted in .pdf format to reduce spam.) Oh, and if it was me, I'd lose the "If you're using Internet Explorer, go away" messages. Since many companies mandate IE, it has a decidely anti-corporate feel. "

An excellent point. The developers of any respectable website should take steps to make sure that it is compatible with all major browsers (of course, websites can stipulate that only newer versions of these browsers will be supported).

Duif, I have that note about IE, because there are really some serious serious errors when one uses it, that make the site look completely terrible.

I'm far from an expert programmer and somehow when I program it only works on FireFox, I simply don't know how to make it work for IE. Hopefully in the future this will get sorted out, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. I'll change it to "For best results use Firefox", sounds a bit more positive :)

Greg,

I just went click happy on the site with IE 7 and did not experience any problems. Is it possible that it is just a question of version?

It could be. Try the stats page though, that one seemed to mess up for me. And also for some reason the logos at the top of the page are a bit lopsided when compared to firefox?

Greg,

Well, when I go to the stats page I don't receive any error messages, but most of the tables are blank, except for the match score distribution at the bottom.

I am curious....with all the discussion underway at the moment about whether or not the USCF should continue to publish a paper Chess Life magazine, I wonder if it has ever been evaluated to determine the value it could bring to sponsors?

I believe it costs about $200,000 per year to publish the magazine.

If the top 100 US players could each find a Chess Life sponsor for $2,000 a year, that would pay for most of the magazine, right?

Even if the USCF had to print an extra 5 copies per sponsor per month (so an extra 500 copies per month) and give each sponsor-plus-player one page per year (that's 8 per month plus, say, 2 more pages per issue for box ads and a description of the program), it should be a significant contribution to the magazine budget.

It would be an interesting project, anyway. A current full page ad costs $2650, so it could be presented as a bargain in one sense, and a circulation of over 60,000 is better than a lot of niche sports. It's also (at the present time at least) a high quality publication, easy to present from that aspect.

Of course, the players would have to believe that use of their image to keep the print magazine going would, in the long run, be good for them.

I think the magazine does impress people who first see it. I just don't know if anyone's ever looked at it from that aspect.

Well, just a random thought...

Duif

Parsnips is dead on. Anyone who criticizes Shulman or Friedel is a an idot. These guys are behaving 100% rationally, and congratulations to both on their individual accomplishments in the tournament.

Why on earth would they want to do that?

"If the top 100 US players could each find a Chess Life sponsor for $2,000 a year, that would pay for most of the magazine, right?"

Is it possible to imagine anything lower in a player's list of financial priorities?

Not sure if someone mentioned this in the above comments, but I'm adding this info to the item as an update. I'm told that before the final round the TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect were being suspended for the final round so Friedel and Shulman could play their non-game for the GM norm and title. A minute later, draw. Bizarre, horrible, and pointless favoritism. It's a little surprising that changing the rules like that is even allowed. I'm sure the players trailing Shulman by a point would have appreciated a real game by the leader, who had black against a dangerous opponent. I know you can never force players to play to win, and 30 moves of swapping wouldn't have entertained or fooled anyone, but announcing the suspension of the rules before the round, followed by the draw a minute later, is a little too cynical for me. This is the US championship, not a First Saturday tourney.

As for the draw itself, of course the players were behaving rationally. I don't blame the players. That's exactly the problem. We have permitted our game to create endless situations in which the interests of the individual at a given time far outweigh the long-term interests of the sport itself. This is why, as annoying as it may be, legislation is necessary to reverse this pathetic decline.

NFL teams aren't forced to play differently when they have the lead. But they are forced to play all 60 minutes even when a tie might benefit both teams in the standings. They introduced a shot clock in the NBA so the team with the lead wouldn't just pass the ball around forever to win, boring fans to death in the process. The chess draw by mutual agreement was a professional courtesy that has evolved into a strategic maneuver and a pernicious element. Open tournaments that are pay-to-play are a slightly different scenario since the players are rarely there to draw or reward sponsorship. But in invitationals it's preposterous to have such things. Again, of course it's rational for the players. They aren't idiots and they would be foolish not to exploit the rules for advantage when others will. This is why it is necessary to simply remove the option so we can get back to playing -- *playing* -- chess.

It seems bizzare that the TD need to announce short draws are allowed in the final round. Even without the announcement, I think they would have played for draw anyway.

To Jon Jacobs,
You are shortchanging the internet audience in my opinion. To me what you are saying sounds similar to what someone might have said about that newfangled television thing when radio had been king for so long. The internet audience is every bit as important as the television audience, and perhaps even more so as time goes on. And yes, advertisers can do fine on the internet, depending on audience size, just like with television. If the internet is still too new to some developers and they don't take advantage of the advertisement money, that is not the fault of the audience. I think you will be surprised at how the internet will kick tv's behind over the next few decades, and the internet is particularly well suited to chess.

@Jon Jacobs: chess tourneys also get sponsorships because of the fact that many chess fans ("freeriders"?? as you call them) visit the webpage of the tourney. and the more exiting the games more people will visit the page.
so i'd say that at least indirectly chessfans are very important for every chess competition and we have every right in the world to complain about the lack of the fighting spirit.

I'm not doubting you Mig, but can you name your source for this information about the rule change?

As with most such things I see no reason to identify my source unless someone denies the statement took place. It was said to the room so it's not like it was a secret pact or as if they were trying to hide it. I'm sure they considered it a kindness or at least a convenience and perhaps others feel that way, too. I don't consider it a malfeasance; I just found it odd and worth noting.

I have little doubt Friedel and Shulman would have played for a draw anyway, which makes the announcement, barring some explanation, both baseless and cynical. Again, there were two players who could have caught Shulman had he lost, so it wasn't like the game was meaningless.

Two reports, both by Tom Braunlich and identical in large parts, are up at ChessBase http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4650 and the USCF site http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8464/456 .

I can now tell you that the TC for the Armageddon game was 6 mins White / 4:30 Black, though I still don't know who split the time and who chose colors. The Armageddon game ended with both players in SEVERE time-trouble with Krush hoping to flag Zatonskih and Zatonskih trying to hold on and flag Krush.

In the Youtube video (who composed this?) which is linked from the ChessBase article, you can see them blitzing out the last few moves, with Zatonskih moving her rook back and forth from a8 to b8 or so because it was the move she could make which was nearest the clock. It looks to me as if the .pgn file misses this last bullet-game flurry. A rook is sent rolling around on the back rank, I think by Krush... Braunlich says that Krush's flag fell with 0000.1 sec left on Zatonskih's clock.

In the video she then makes some remark which I can't get and departs in a state, which, on the ChessBase site, is touted in italics: "Don't miss Irina's final comment and storm-off – this was really most distressing." It doesn't distress ME, for God's sake - to lose the title by a tenth of a second in this kind of thing, after playing solidly for hours and hours including that long endgame with Rohonyan? She did well not to throw anything. Actually I think this is a cheesy comment by whoever wrote it, and I SUSPECT it was a ChessBase editorial intrusion into the middle of Braunlich's article. On the USCF site, he writes, "Irina was naturally upset at the narrow defeat, but she returned to the closing ceremony shortly afterwards smiling and in her usual cheerful mood."

Jon Jacobs wrote:

"IT IS YOU, the couch-potato chess fan, talking as though you have some right to be entertained by professional chess players - when in fact they're under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to perform for you at all."

That's true, Jon. It is also true that those professional players who agree with you don't have any right or reason to expect financial compensation for their efforts or lack thereof.

It is a two way street.

A couple little practical afterthoughts:

(1) Now that the concept of the variable-TC Armageddon game has been introduced, why does it have to be a blitz game? Once you know that (a) there is going to be one decisive game and that (b) because of the I-split,-you-choose method, neither player can complain about who gets the draw odds, why not allow an hour for it and substitute it for the whole rapid/blitz playoff?

(2) Remember the space issue which had Onischuk threatening to walk out and had the organizers trying to decide who plays in the little room? Well, Braunlich reports that actually they resolved the whole thing by rearranging the tables. When the tables were lined up in long rows like a prison cafeteria, the players felt cramped. When they were separated like individual "islands", the players felt much better about it in the same space. There's a practical organizing lesson!

One more thing on the Shulman-Friedel game. Let me ask a hypothetical question. Here is Friedel sitting there who needs a draw for his GM norm. Pretty much everybody in the room wanted him to get it, I suppose. Now, suppose Shulman had adopted a policy of "rectitude" a la Cecil Purdy, saying that nobody was going to score any easy norms when he was around, and played for a win from move 1, got a winning position, declined to offer a draw, and ultimately beat him. What proportion of people in the room - players and organizers - would have thought that Shulman was doing the admirable thing, and what proportion would have thought he was being a jerk? This isn't entirely a rhetorical question - I'm curious.

Mig wrote: "I'm told that before the final round the TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect were being suspended for the final round so Friedel and Shulman could play their non-game for the GM norm and title. A minute later, draw. Bizarre, horrible, and pointless favoritism."

I actually agree with this comment - but for practical reasons, not moral ones.

That's because FIDE probably would be within their rights to reject Friedel's GM norm, if the situation was exactly as Mig described. The incident smacks of explicit collusion, with the organizers directly involved.

Yes, I know many of you including Mig consider ALL unfought draws to be implicit collusion, a form of game-fixing. I disagree, as I've made clear in many places. But, EXPLICIT collusion clearly IS game-fixing; in fact, that's pretty much the dictionary definition. And the organizer's encouragement / purported announcement represents a smoking gun.

In other instances where organizers bent the rules even slightly - EVEN BY ACCIDENT - to help a (U.S.) player make a norm, FIDE actually did throw said norm in the wastebasket.

The prime (and infamous) example is Ben Finegold. He would be a GM today, had not a once-highly-respected U.S. TD not made a pairing error in the final round of the tournament where Finegold made his third GM norm. (Obviously, that event must have been something other than a round robin.) According to the account I read, the mistake was innocent - the TD, Larry Cohen, wasn't deliberately trying to help Finegold get his norm - but FIDE interpreted it that way, and denied the norm.

That was more than 5 years ago. Finegold remains an IM to this day.

When Frank Berry was making his announcement about suspension of the anti short draw rules before the last round, he further qualified it by saying he did it, so that he didn't have to argue with the players about it.

Krush chose 6 vs. 4.5 time split for the play-off, while Zatonskih chose the color (Black). Krush at first said that the method was unfair to the "split chooser", but Jim Berry pointed out that there was a coin flip to determine who chooses what and that's how it turned out and that's that.

Krush was coached by David Pruess and Zatonskih by Alex Onischuk in between play-off games and for the time and color decisions for the Armageddon game.

Both girls took their time at first for the Armageddon game, trying to win it on the board. The time scramble started when Zatonskih glanced at the clock and saw that she had 2 seconds left vs. 6 seconds for Krush. When the dust cleared, Krush's time expired while Zatonskih still had 1 second left on her clock. The mode that was chosen didn't show the tenths. Krush said "come on!", threw a Rook (at an angle to the board, not trying to hit Zatonskih or anyone else), and stormed off. The pieces were rolling around during the time scramble as well, so you might say she simply got the last throw in. Krush was back at the closing ceremony, reserved a bit maybe, but with no additional acrimony expressed.

Gjelka from monroi videotaped the entire play-off and Betsy Dynako videotaped parts of it as well.

Thanks for the additional info, Michael! Actually, it strikes me that both players might have gotten in trouble in the Armageddon game because they had been playing with 3 secs. delay all day, including the two rapid and two blitz games, so mentally switching over to playing sudden-death may have been difficult. Note: there's no reason there can't be a delay in an Armageddon game under this system; naturally it helps Black draw, but then the split chooser can give Black as little time as he/she wants.

Theodulf writes: "(1) Now that the concept of the variable-TC Armageddon game has been introduced, why does it have to be a blitz game? Once you know that (a) there is going to be one decisive game and that (b) because of the I-split,-you-choose method, neither player can complain about who gets the draw odds, why not allow an hour for it and substitute it for the whole rapid/blitz playoff?"

Because in general, chess tournaments should be decided by playing chess, not by playing some disgusting variant game.

The Armageddon game was a terrible way to decide the women's championship. I'm an Irina partisan, so if the outcome was different iI might be singing a different tune, but it makes me wonder if the tiebreaking games could not be a mini-match of Fischerrandom games at a time control of 5/3, with the choice of colors going to the person who has accumulated the most wins in the tournament, or to the person with the least defeats if that is a tie, and the winner of the tiebreak being the first person to win five games. It would still be chess' it would honor Bobby's memory; and it might prevent what we all saw happen.

The Berry brothers deserve all the kudos they get for a great tournament. But along with this, let's not forget that the Truong-Polgar duo ran for office to bring in a lot more money to the USCF, and so far things haven't changed one bit. A US Championship without Kamsky, Benjamin, Naka and Larry C is a joke.

abc,

The sponsorship money would not come FROM the players. It would come from outside sponsors who would be matched with a player.

The whole project would be a learning experience. USCF would learn how to deal with sponsors, the top 100 players would get some experience in dealing with sponsors through the organization.

The nice thing about it is that from the sponsors' point of view it's a very straightforward concept. Full page ads in Chess Life sell for $2650. They would be getting more for less.

The Top 100 Players idea simply creates the framework.

It's quite possible that some of the players would go on to more extensive sponsorship from some of the sponsors. But that's not really the point.

More importantly would be both the USCF and the top 100 players starting to think about sponsorship as other niche competitions do. Not a single Fairy Godmother who waves a magic wand and solves all problems. Rather a large network of different sources giving different amounts for different projects in exchange for identified value.

The side benefit would be ensuring that all the adult members continue to get the magazine--which I believe would be of benefit to any professional player who hoped to continue to draw sponsorship.

By identifying the money as going towards the Chess Life budget up front, you would also remove a lot of the conflicting priority discussions that can derail other projects.

It would also be very easy to define and meet sponsor expectations, unlike event sponsorship, which is much trickier.

It's a "baby step" project, but one that would help meet an existing organizational need while starting to lay the foundation for an atmosphere that would promote professional sponsorship.

Anyway, as I said, just a random thought, provoked by Greg's earlier comment about the historical dearth of sponsorship for the championship.

--Duif

Ed: Personally I'd prefer a multi-day match between the top two, given the resources, but if we are going to have some sort of abbreviated playoff, I submit that rapid, blitz, and draw-odds uneven-time ("Armageddon") games are all "variants" of classical-TC chess, and that the judgment over whether 5 3 blitz, on the one hand, or a 60-minute-total Armageddon game, on the other hand, is the more "disgusting" a variant is a subjective one :-)

Duif wrote:

"The nice thing about it is that from the sponsors' point of view it's a very straightforward concept. Full page ads in Chess Life sell for $2650. They would be getting more for less."

It's hard to imagine finding more than a handful of businesses who would consider a full-page ad in Chess Life worth $2650.

Irv,

As it stands now, absolutely, you're right. But as part of a sponsorship package, yes, I do think it could work. But I also suspect it's one of those Henry Ford situations: "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right."

However, I'm also quite sure that the chess community in general agrees with you, so I'm sure it won't happen.

We may see a few individual US players who do seek out sponsorship and succeed. But I doubt if we'll ever see a USCF umbrella program, on any level. Just too many other priorities to take care of first.

--Duif

Theodulf: "I submit that rapid, blitz, and draw-odds uneven-time ('Armageddon') games are all 'variants' of classical-TC chess..."

Rapid and blitz are just chess. Under the severe time-contraints that events currently have, using them is reasonable. Armageddeon is a variant, since it radically changes the object of the game. Using it at all to break a tie in a chess tournament is appalling. Using it as the first method of breaking a tie is an abomination in the sight of Caissa.

Since noone ever saw Caissa (except for Gufeld, who was a pathological lyar), we should be safe witht the latter option.

.
Mig wrote, and used the term "swapping":
{
I know you can never force players to play to win, and 30 moves of swapping wouldn't have entertained or fooled anyone
}

One reason that chess is so draw prone may be that there are so many equivalent value exchanges or "swaps" that can be made among the officer pieces (and of course among the pawns too).
These relatively easy exchanges can rapidly drain piece power at crucial times during the game, breeding draws (without debating whether these draws are preferable to decisive outcomes).

Half of White's eight officers are of equivalent value, that is a lot of equivalence.

Equivalent Exchanges...

8 combinations of R:R
28 when summing N:N , N:B , B:N , B:B

IF in 1475 the fellow** who revised the chess rules had chosen a wider variety of piece types, chess might be far less draw prone today. Chess would have more piece power on the board longer. And more non-equivalent exchanges (still including R:B etc) would generate more of the imbalances that help make chess games decisive.

That both White knights start on the same shade of square also increases the frequency of draw-ish exchanges.

Here is a link to a related article (that I would write somewhat differently in the future)...

http://www.ChessBase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4612

(That follow-up article contains link to the original =4553 near its top.)

Good or bad in itself, the draw-prone nature of chess is what causes the need for one unsatisfactory tie-breaking mechanism after another. Armageddon is not chess, but it is better than the old coin flip that Robert Hubner suffered in the 1980's (Smyslov may have a different opinion).

** (I know it was not one guy, but I like the imagery of the myth.)
.

Duif wrote:

"However, I'm also quite sure that the chess community in general agrees with you, so I'm sure it won't happen."

I don't think finding sponsorship money is up to the chess community, no matter how hard it wishes to find it.

The reality is that nobody has ever come up with a coherent plan to get the sponsorship money in a steady basis. Yes, people find the occasionasl big sponsor (Yasser Seirawan lucked out with his father in law's political connections and that's how he became part of A4CF), but the rule is that the general public is NOT interested in chess, so nobody ever wants to commit serious money to a VERY marginal activity (in the same league as olympic wrestling,checkers, weight-lifting, spelling bee competitions, etc.).

I know you have spoused your theories for many years. Have you ever tried them with any top player(s)? I'd be seriously interested in hearing the outcome, if any...

Irv,

By "the chess community," I include the leadership in organisations such as the USCF and FIDE, and the titled players. Most of them believe getting chess into the schools is a much higher priority.

They follow the Highly Educated Fan theory--that the more people who understand the intricacies of your activity, the better it will be for the pros.

The alternative is the Iconic Message theory, which says that people don't have to be able to name 4 major golf titles to want to buy products associated with Tiger Woods--or the 35th highest rank woman in the LPGA.

As far as testing my theories in practice--personally, in chess I've only done them for myself, and I had no difficulty finding sponsors who made possible my own (very) small career. (When active, I am one of the top 100 female players in the US, and currently the highest USCF-rated woman in correspondence play.)

I'd be happy to work (for free) with any titled player who was interested, but they honestly don't need me...it's all standard stuff. For example, the Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit is a book that anyone can get, many libraries carry, and has 90% of the information that they'd need.

Btw, you specifically mentioned "olympic wrestling"--in the US, their sponsors include Sunkist, the US Marines, AT&T, 24 hour Fitness, and American Airlines. Most individual olympic wrestlers have websites that includes lists of their individual sponsors, and encourage more.

Check out Joe Williams' page for an example:
http://www.joewillwin.com/sponsor.php

--Duif

What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?

Friedel and Shulman were gonna draw their game no matter what, whether it is 30 moves or 15 moves or whatever.. Even if 1 side has a clear advantage after 30 moves it makes no sense to play on and risk losing.

Also, if you enforce this draw rule strictly, it results in more fixed games, which is EVEN WORSE than quick draws. The bottom line is if 2 people want a draw, they will find a way to do it despite the organizer's best efforts.

Mig wrote: "...TDs announced that the no-short-draw rules that had been in effect..."

Here is a list of draws in the event that had 30 moves or less:

Fedorowicz - Shulman, rd 1, 22 moves
Akobian - Ippolito, rd 1, 20 moves
Ludwig - Perelshteyn, rd 1, 28 moves
Yermo - Gulko, rd 2, 15 moves
Finegold - Ludwig, rd 2, 26 moves
Kaidanov - Kudrin, rd 3, 19 moves
Kraai - Finegold, rd 3, 21 moves
Becerra - Kaidanov, rd 4, 30 moves
Perelshteyn - Fedorowicz, rd 4, 20 moves
Langer - Galant, rd 4, 30 moves
Akobian - Yermolinsky, rd 5, 25 moves
Gulko - Vigorito, rd 5, 24 moves
Onischuk - Becerra, rd 6, 26 moves
Shabalov - Finegold, rd 6, 16 moves
Fedorowicz - Kaidanov, rd 8, 15 moves
Friedel - Shulman, rd 9, 11 moves
Vigorito - Yermolinsky, rd 9, 14 moves
Becerra - Akobian, rd 9, 17 moves

And chess players want people to donate money to sponsor this crap???LOL

Congrats again MIG, still wonedring why people are not crying about your joke last year about the prostitue exports that was so funny and they are back like the idiot parsnips, they cryied like babies when you wrote that hillarious piece. Anyway great blog and keep up the good work love to hear these ignorant randoms praise a system that leeds to total irrelavance. The palyers don't complain because they have ALL done it with the exception of Nakamura. If they all were not such cowards and narcissists then maybe chess in this country would produce ONE super GM every 50 YEARS at least.

Hey Bush suspended the Constitution for years so we could destroy our country can't the USCF do the same to chess?Must agree MIg if you make the rules, then you can't suspend the rules, otherwise it is just worthless crap. Which titles are now by the way imho.

I'd very much appreciate it if someone could tell me the exact wording of the anti-draw rule in effect for this tournament (the one concerning which there is a claim that it was suspended for the final round). Also what prior status did this anti-draw rule have; how and at what stage were all the participants informed of it?

We have recently had some controversy here in Australia when a version of the Gibraltar rule was applied in the Doeberl Cup, and in the final round the arbiters interpreted it in a way that caused them to force two players who wanted to draw by repetition (albeit very early) to play on.

Thus I am very interested in other experiences with attempts to control draws.

Irv,

Oh, just to be clear: there are several dozen US women who are higher rated than I am over the board. They just haven't taken the time to play correspondence. So I'm not trying to claim to be an elite player.

Quite the opposite--my intended point was that if I could get sponsorship as a strong amateur, it seems to be pretty straightforward. Not easy, of course, but no different than other niche sports.

But history would seem to prove me wrong, so there it is.

regards,
Duif

p.s. BTW, to look at another on your list of niche competitions, 1st place in the National Spelling Bee receives $35,000 in cash plus some additional prizes.

http://spellingbee.com/comp_prizes.asp

What is worse? 1) The fact that a women's "national championship" was decided by an Armaggeddon game or 2) by Krush's childish and unsportsmanlike behavior when she lost on time, visible on Youtube for any young chess fan to see or 3) the Zatokskih's "ace" strategy of making moves closer to the clock to try to win on time.

Too bad Krush had to wear that stylish jacket to the final game. Look at all the precious nanoseconds wasted while pushing the sleeves back again and again, while the glory of the championship hung in the balance. Perhaps attire would have made all the difference!

There are so many things wrong with how this all came to be -- it is of no wonder that chess is not doing better. At least I am now aware that it was, in fact, to care less about women's chess than I already did.

Maybe it was cold in the room. Let's not rush to criticize in order to manufacture drama because we were all bored by the men's games.

Zatonskih won fair and square and deserves huge congratulations. I personally am always excited when a female player gets married, has kids, but doesn't let that affect her love for chess or playing strength.

However, it's completely understandable that Irina was exhausted and upset; she played for hours that day and had just watched her clock run out when her opponent was making repetitive moves. Is it such a big deal to say "Oh come on" and make a sudden and possible unintentional movement with your arm that knocks a piece off the board? It's not like she cursed, said something disrespectful to Anna, or refused to return for the closing ceremony. Has she ever behaved discourteously before? Why don't we cut her a break then?

Let's applaud both Zatonskih and Krush for providing us with hours of entertaining, energetic, and hard-fought chess.

Duif wrote:

"By "the chess community," I include the leadership in organisations such as the USCF and FIDE, and the titled players. Most of them believe getting chess into the schools is a much higher priority."

The reason is simple: they can make money with the Chess in the Schools movement. It has become a big business (by chess standards, of course).

"As far as testing my theories in practice--personally, in chess I've only done them for myself, and I had no difficulty finding sponsors who made possible my own (very) small career."

Glad to hear that. However, a real pro can't possibly subsist on a few hundred dollars worth of "sponsorship" money. Players have to be very careful to NOT confuse "charity" with "sponsorship". Going to the local dentist or supermaket, presenting a sponsorship package and walking out with a promise of $150 is charity, not sponsorship.

"When active, I am one of the top 100 female players in the US"

Please, take no offense, but your claim , while technically true, is completely worthless. You are just an abjectly weak player. I'm a rated master and my little "title" is (for the purpose of sponsorship) worthless, too.

"BTW, to look at another on your list of niche competitions, 1st place in the National Spelling Bee receives $35,000 in cash plus some additional prizes."

True. The US Chess Championship had more money than that on a couple of occasions. However, we are not looking for the exception. We are looking for the rule. And the rule is that all these marginal activities can't generate any amount of steady, meaningful sponsorship for its top players/practitioners.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent plan for implementing your theories. Youyr intentions are good, but your ideas amount to no more than cheap, infantile, pocket-book marketing nonsense. That may be the reason nobody follows your advise.

Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?

Have a look at this video from 1:00 and you will see what I mean (started some moves before the rook ones)..

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ

"Yes, and in the NFL they should be forced to throw for touchdowns with a 7 point lead.

And in the NBA, they should get shots off in 7 seconds or less with a 6 point lead.

And in Hockey and Soccer, if you're up 1-0, take out the keeper, you need more goals...

Idiots."
-Posted by: Parsnips at May 22, 2008 12:36

What bad analogies these are. An obvious place where they fail is that you're likening a chess tournament to a single game in another sport. A more appropriate comparison of gaining a lead (in soccer, hockey, whatever) and protecting it through conservative play would be to gaining a significant advantage in a chess game (material or positional) and opting to play a safe continuation rather than something more risky or flashy. You won't hear many (any?) people complain about that!

"Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?"
-Posted by: REMIT at May 24, 2008 15:17

I think you're right.

Irv,

What an interesting comment!

"I'm still waiting for you to provide a coherent plan for implementing your theories. Youyr intentions are good, but your ideas amount to no more than cheap, infantile, pocket-book marketing nonsense. That may be the reason nobody follows your advise."

As I've mentioned a number of times, the ideas aren't mine--they're just a standard approach. The "coherent plan" is available in a number of again, standard references. I have mentioned most recently a book I have to do nothing to with, "The Sponsorship Seeker's Toolkit." This is perhaps the most widely available, which is why I recommend it. It is both coherent and a plan. I thought the example of the Olympic wrestlers seeking individual sponsors was pretty straightforward.

Why you suddenly jump to adjectives like "cheap," and "infantile" is honestly fascinating to me. I have seen this again and again in the chess community, and nowhere else.

I have myself been quite a successful consultant. In a straight business sense, my credentials are well known. My chess credentials are no secret--I'm a master in correspondence chess and 1700 or so over the board. Over the years I have done fundraising with schools, political candidates, children's causes and environmental organizations.

I never suggested that chess players could subsist entirely on sponsorship. I do think they could get more than they have, as competitors in most niche activities do.

In this topic I've just responded to Greg's comment about his curiosity as to why the USCF doesn't attract more sponsorship. However perhaps your most recent comment does give the answer.

For some reason, many in the chess community seem to be quite actively hostile to even exploring the whole idea.

Truly very interesting.

You have quite convinced me. I think all the arguments are on your side.

Thank you for taking the time, and being so clear. It really has been a very helpful discussion.

Respectfully,
Duif

Just to follow up, REMIT, it might be worth mentioning here that the NBA enforces rules concerning how much time must be left on the (shot or game) clock for a player to catch and inbound pass and get a shot off. In basketball, the clock starts only when an inbound pass touches any player on the court rather than when it physically crosses the out-of-bounds line. They have empirically determined that there must be at least 0.3 seconds remaining to allow a catch-and-shoot scenario. Thus, any attempt to quickly catch a pass and shoot with less than 0.3 remaining will be called back by the officials, regardless of any timekeeper errors or shenanigans. Note that it is still possible to score off an inbound pass with less than 0.3 left, but it must be a "tip-in" rather than a "catch-and-shoot".

After this incident, the USCF might rightly consider a similar rule regarding how quickly a chess move can be played. I understand that some players, having encountered such time pressure many times, will have very fast hands, but is it really possible to make a chess move in less than, say, 0.1 or 0.2 seconds? Doubtful. Of course I'm also assuming there are no timekeeping shenanigans such as starting your move before the opponent has punched their clock.

Here's an obvious solution that I think might work well enough. Chess clocks should be programmed to enforce a minimum time per move - say 0.2 seconds. If a player manages to punch their clock before 0.2 has elapsed, their clock continues to run and the opponent's won't start until 0.2 has run off. This handles the twofold advantage gained by getting your move in faster and depriving the opponent of the extra "thinking" time.

duif--

Another cheap and infantile post, but this time the weakness is less abject. You're definitely making progress!

Duif and others,

Don't mistake Irv as an emblem/archetype for "the chess community." He is entirely marginal to organized chess, as he himself would be the first to admit. (The fact that he's a strong player is wholly irrelevant.)

If he's to be viewed as an archetype of anything, it would be the Internet gadfly community that exists around the fringes of every sport, business or political community. These permanent critics / naysayers are distinguished from ordinary critics of the establishment in that, rather concentrating their negative energy on a particular individual or group (Bush, the GOP, or in our case, the current USCF or FIDE leadership, or a particular GM or group of GMs) - an attitude that logically CHANGES when different parties come to power - they're equally cynical about everyone and everything associated with the activity they fixate on.

In the case of chess, the deep-rooted hostility to any possibility of chess sponsorship that's evident in Irv's comments here (and on other threads), has a strong element of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Or in the words of a different, much more contemporary thinker who Duif evoked, "How very interesting...."

Clearly Irv has a great emotional investment in believing that chess sponsorship is a pipe dream...to the point where, when faced with contrary evidence - when, for instance, someone (like Duif) does manage to snatch a handful of those grapes - Irv's instant rejoinder is, "The grapes were sour."

Thank you, Greg. I try to always welcome an opportunity to learn from the Masters. ;)

regards,
Duif

Chiming in once more before I get banned for spamming. I downloaded that YouTube video of the Krush-Zatonskih finish and watched it a 1/4 speed in VLC. There were no less than 5 instances where Zatonskih grabbed her piece and started her move before Krush has finished her move by punching the clock. There was even one particularly flagrant example where Anna had finished here move before Irina had even punched the clock, and there she ended up punching the clock about a millisecond after Irina. Say what you will about the randomness of blitz chess and time trouble, but this was supposed to be a regulated tournament, not a park bench. Hard to believe the organizers let the result stand without checking out the video. I honestly think someone should file a protest if it isn't too late.

By the way, I have no loyalties towards Krush or Zatonskih one way or the other. Both used to lecture on a chess server where I was once a member, and I remember them both being very nice girls.

Official USCF blitz rules are here:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7982/28/

However, the only thing that's relevant there is that the legal move is not completed until the clock is pressed.

The question would then arise, "Are you allowed to touch pieces on the board while it is still your opponent's move?"

This would apply whether it is blitz or standard chess.

So for that question, one would normally consult the regular rule book, which is available only in paper.

Unless, of course, special rules were adopted for this event, or a different rule book was in use.

In most forms of chess, touching a piece on the board while it is still your opponent's move would be considered interfering with their concentration even if you gained no time advantage from it. But I don't know about this particular event.

--Duif

Elizabeth Vicary --

Irrespective if you think the chess between Krush and Zatonskih was entertaining:

Would you speak with and\or correct similar behavior in any of your junior high chess students if they blasted a rook off the table after a tough time forfeit and then stormed out of the room without shaking the opponent's hand?

To have this happen in a U.S. Championship is disgraceful, despite the obvious sympathies for Krush that most of us have about the bitterness of such a defeat, particularly in light of Zatonskih's questionable observance of blitz rules and etiquette.

I watched Alexander Ivanov up a piece and on his way to winning the World Open several years back, completely melt-down in time trouble in the final round and lose out on first place and several thousand dollars of prize money -- only to shake the hand of his lucky opponent and give at least a perfunctory congratulation.

Anyone over the age of 16 should be expected to observe a minimum of sportsmanship -- I recognize Krush as the best U.S. female player and highly entertaining in her games and writing, but to give her a free pass for even this occasional lapse in conduct is a bit much.

To Duif - I just assumed you weren't allowed to touch your piece before the opponent had clocked. Seems an obvious rule.

To ohreally - Come on now, Irina's reaction was hardly over the top. Even if she didn't realize she'd been (basically) cheated at the time, she surely realized that the end of that game was a farce.

I think i'll offer Duif an apology on behalf of chessplayers and fans. I hope the intemperate and ill-mannered posts by Irv are an aberration rather than the behaviour norm for strong players but i despair at the generally sarcastic and uncivil tone of a lot of these discussion threads. You kinda understand why there are so many uncouth barbarians in our midst and we inhabit the margins of social respectability.

ohreally,

oh, really?

I bet you would be a really sore loser if it happened to you.

I wouldn't accept such behavior from my students, but I also hope they don't have the same emotional investment in their weekend Saturday G/30 tournaments as Irina Krush does in the US Championship playoffs.

She behaved incorrectly, no doubt. But people like her exactly because she is competitive and ambitious and consequently achieves a lot. You're going to hate her for that now? Normally she's very well-behaved. So she had one lapse at 11 o'clock at night after playing a grueling tournament and numerous tiebreak games. I would guess she spoke privately to the people involved. What's the need to make a huge public big deal?

And not to beat a dead horse, but clearly it's must better for chess to have an entertaining if impolite finale than to have pre-arranged last-round draws. (No disrespect to Friedel or Shulman intended. Anyone would have done the same thing.)

On the blitz move issue, this issue has been taken up by Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen in his chesscafe.com column recently (not in connection with this game, of course):

"Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent’s clock, even after the opponent has made his move."

So according to Gijssen, it is legal to whip out your hand to move your rook as soon as your opponent's hand has left his/her piece. What you mustn't do is complete the move and get your hand back to the clock and intercept your opponent's hand before he/she has even pressed the clock at all.

And on two other points:

- In other sports, you don't think any professional athlete has ever exclaimed something nasty at the moment that he/she or his/her team lost the title after a grueling contest by a teensy margin? All of the Chelsea players were on their best behavior in the instant after Anelka missed his kick, I suppose? I urge the people who are on Irina's case here to lighten up.

- On the "suspension of the short-draw rules" for the Shulman-Friedel game: I would like to repeat the question which has been asked above, "WERE there any short-draw rules?" I certainly don't see anything on the website suggesting that Sofia or Gibraltar rules were in effect or anything like that, and if draws in as few as 15 moves were taking place in other rounds, then what are we talking about really? Is it possible that the organizer in question was just making a joke? (In that case I hope it doesn't cost us with FIDE as Jacobs suggests it might.)

Thanks Cynical Gripe for taking up my point.

theodulf- I am very surprised that it can be argued fine to play in your opponent's time. Similar to what happened in the game we are talking about, one side could perpetually move within a tenth of a second of the other so that 90% of the time runs on the other's clock- even though both move just as fast, which seems unfair. You get an automatic win for the second player (who just 'reflects' the times at which the first player moves)in such a time scramble.

According to the FIDE handbook http://www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=32&view=category 'Article 6.8 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent`s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.'

This last part is important- the vital time period we are talking about is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. It is not yet the opponent's allotted time. But then it is if the opponent has also just moved- so it is the allotted time of both at the same time until the clocks are pressed? That would not make sense.

Not to mention I don't think that it is logical to have two players in the middle of making their moves at the same time- the move is not completed until the clock is pressed.

There are also issues regarding even having your hands hovering over the board or causing distraction in your opponent's time, which moving a piece would probably contravene too.

I myself have never started my move while my opponent is still aiming to press his clock after his move on the board, it just feels wrong. I think the best solution is for there to be a time delay for how long you think it should take to move and press the clock so that for example your opponent can not try to just win on time without regard to position at all. The physical moving of piece and pressing of clock is not thinking time and it should not be about this.

I think the rule goes as: You cannot start your move (i.e. toutch your piece) before your oponent has finished his move (i.e. left the piece in its final square). What is allowed is to start your move after your oponent left his piece but before he pressed his clock (provided that you press the clock after he has done the same).

If you can play and press the clock in the same time your oponent needs to just press the clock it is the fact that you play quicker that earns you time. If both players play equally fast, both clocks register the same time.

Given the entire reply by Int'l Arbiter Geurt Gijssen in his chesscafe.com article, as raised by Theodulf, there indeed seems to be a big problem.

Mostly, the problem is the possibility of Geurt's weird logic infecting the whole chess community.

Surely it is well accepted that in tournament chess of any time control, you MUST be allowed to press your own clock before the opponent touches a piece to move?

In blitz tournaments I sometimes complain - to the opponent - if he jumps the gun on moving. Everybody then stops doing it, and nobody claims they had a right to do it.

In all the videos of world class events I do not see players playing by Geurt's interpretation.

The basic principle is that the move is not completed until the clock is pressed. And you can't move until your opponent has moved.

"Question Dear Sir, your last column raised some questions that were widely discussed at our online forum. Could you comment on this quote?

Your question is in fact: Can one make a move before the opponent has stopped his clock and started the opponent’s clock?

To answer this I refer to Article 6.8.a:

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)

Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent’s clock, even after the opponent has made his move.

In the Ukraine this is not generally accepted. The latest Ukrainian translation of the FIDE Rules literally makes no differences between “move hasn’t been made” and “move hasn’t been completed.” Thus, based on articles 1.1 and 6.8.a, such a rendition means that a player has the right to make his move only after the opponent has made his move (article 1.1), stopped his clock and started the opponent’s clock (article 6.8.a). Do you consider this as a misinterpretation?

By the way, a former Soviet arbiter said that the old version of the FIDE Rules expressly prohibited making a move until the opponent stopped his clock. It’s pity that I could not find a printed copy. Thanks. Yuri Hnip (Ukraine)

Answer I have mentioned several times that the phrase “made a move” in Article 1.1 is confusing. It is possible to speak of “completing a move” only after the term “chess clock” is introduced, and this happens in Article 6. But this does not provide a sufficient answer to your question: Do you consider the fact that a player may make a move only after the opponent has completed his move (meaning made his move and pressed the clock) as a misinterpretation? My answer is: Yes. This is based on Article 6.8: A player must always be allowed to stop his clock.

In my opinion, this part of Article 6.8 only makes sense if a player makes a move before the opponent has pressed his clock. It means that even when a player is not on move, he is allowed to press the clock in the given situation. The following argument may not be very strong, but suppose a player can only move after the opponent has pressed the clock. Can you imagine how many quarrels we would have in Blitz and Rapid games? And in this case there is no difference between “normal,” Rapid and Blitz games."

Hardy,

You are very kind, but really no apology is necessary from anyone. I found the discussion interesting and enlightening. I myself was always honoured and pleased to get sponsorship regardless of the amount. It was just a question of balance--how much time did it take away from other things.

Perhaps chessplayers like Irv just have such high standards that it seems only the highest elite are worthy?

I personally found the support and accountability of a support network very helpful, beyond just the financial benefit.

If I, for example, were to return to tournament chess and set a personal goal of becoming an over the board master, I would certainly feel comfortable seeking sponsorship to help me achieve that. I know it wouldn't even put me in the top 100 of US players, but I still think it's a real accomplishment.

I admit to being fascinated by the marketing side, too, but that's my professional background. I can't help that. I am always interested in what people who don't play tournament chess think about it.

Regardless, I concede the general argument to Irv completely. I don't think sponsorship would work for him. I hope that he will respect the possibility that it can work for some individuals, even if he regards them as misguided.

Chess does attract purists, and that's not a bad thing. It is an objective game, and the rating system, while not perfect, gives us a lot of information about a player.

Sponsorship is a value-based proposition, but it does have a degree of subjectivity that may just not be comfortable for some players. There is no ELO formula for sponsorship. I think that's an important point, and I appreciate Irv's clarity on the topic. I learned a lot from his comments.

regards,
Duif

p.s. I should add that the balance issue is how much time does it take to meet the sponsor's expectations, not just find sponsors in the first place. Since I enjoy a lot of the activities that sponsors need done to complete the value package, it probably is a little easier for me.

You're at the end of a long journey; you have to play a farcical game to decide the title of US Women's Champion after a long and grueling day; you've just come off a 108 move draw that could have been concluded as such much much earlier; and you lose with less than two seconds difference and on top of that you are expected to not let your feelings show???
That is a ridiculous expectation.
And, in my view, biased as well.

Korchnoi regularly exhibits less-than-desirable behavior when he loses a normal tournament game, and hardly anyone gives him the grief that Irina has recieved for practicing her tennis forehand on her king. Indeed, he gets a monicker, "Victor the Terrible," while on other posts I have seen elsewhere, Irina is likened to something that is as far from her real personality as one can get.

Is there a double standard here?

Irina is the greatest player in the history of US Woman's chess. She plays her heart out in every game; and I find it interesting to note that the chess in the woman's section of this tournament was considerably harder fought than that in the men's.

The sexism directed against both Irina and Anna (I'm not going to cite specifics, if you want to see them for yourselves, just look at Susan Polgar's blog, or chessgames.com) by immature jerks who seem, by their writing, to be stuck somewhere in their emotional development between a plastic pocket protector-wearing geek and a drooling ape with less empathy than King Kong, is reprehensible.

Both of these women deserve our respect, appreciation, and compassion. The time for quibbling about hitting clocks and flying kings is past. To do otherwise is to cheapen the hard-earned title of the one, and reduce the other to a caricature that she in no way resembles.

Give them a break.

I'd like to pick up on the comment of Theodulf above and suggest that a lot of discord could be avoided in the future by having a 3-5 second delay in the Armageddon game at the end of such a tournament.

The need for an Armageddon-like game seems clear - players can trade wins or paired draws indefinitely, so to get a winner you need to play a single game and make a draw a winning result for one player. Giving black draw odds and sweetening white's usual advantage with a little extra time seems natural.

However, if it is played as blitz without a delay, then you will sometimes run into the usual garbage blitz endgame techniques - random moves, clock banging, "unintentionally" knocking over pieces, etc. All of which is normal for blitz, but has no place in regular chess. I would suggest that to avoid this kind of spectacle, it would be worthwhile to keep a 3-5 second delay, so that the players always have time to physically move the pieces. Then the game has to be decided on the board. Obviously the time difference between white and black would need to be adjusted accordingly, though I'd say the same method of choosing the times could be used.

The one downside that I can think of with this arrangement is you could get to a complicated-but-drawn endgame in which white refuses to concede the draw, but instead tries to play on indefinitely, avoiding 3-fold repetitions, in hope of some miracle. I seem to recall a recent tournament (in France, with Korchnoi and Kosteniuk and Fressinet) where a game seemed to threaten to go on forever. Anyway, from the TD's perspective, this might be bad because they could theoretically be required to step in at some point , but this fairly remote possibility seems a better bet than the all-too-likely finale we saw.

By the way, congratulations and good luck to both players. I hope Zatonskih gets some benefit from the title, and I hope Krush can still get invites to all those foreign tournaments she's been playing in lately. They are a lot of fun to watch, when they aren't playing blitz.

"What bad analogies these are. An obvious place where they fail is that you're likening a chess tournament to a single game in another sport. A more appropriate comparison of gaining a lead (in soccer, hockey, whatever) and protecting it through conservative play would be to gaining a significant advantage in a chess game (material or positional) and opting to play a safe continuation rather than something more risky or flashy. You won't hear many (any?) people complain about that!"

Not so much a bad analogy, as a demonstration of your inability to abstract out protecting a win in various competitive situations where the goal is to win. But please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills.

"Not so much a bad analogy, as a demonstration of your inability to abstract out protecting a win in various competitive situations where the goal is to win. But please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills."
-Posted by: parsnips at May 26, 2008 00:53

I maintain that it's a poor analogy. Let's say FIFA decided to organize a round-robin soccer tournament, and that oh, I don't know, Portugal had a lead of 3 points going into the last game against Spain, thus being able to clinch the title with a draw. Spain could not win the tournament, but a draw would earn them a top-8 finish and an automatic birth in some future tournament. How sporting would it be for them to look after their mutual interests by playing a non-game in which neither team even attempted anything resembling an attack or a shot on goal? Better yet, they should be allowed to declare a draw after 30 minutes of this non-game.

I see this more as being granted the title rather than protecting it. Protecting something implies some sort of defensive effort on your part, such as playing in a conservative style, rather than not having to play at all.

Duif wrote:

"Perhaps chessplayers like Irv just have such high standards that it seems only the highest elite are worthy?"

In all honesty, Duif, only the very best deserve and get REAL sponsorship (when there is sponsorship money avaliable, of course - that may not be the case with chess).

Whenever I discuss these issues, I only consider IM & GM (plus very promising young players) as possible candidates for sponsorship. I don't think that run-of-the-mill masters - like me - or truly weak players like you deserve or can even attract real sponsorship.

"If I, for example, were to return to tournament chess and set a personal goal of becoming an over the board master, I would certainly feel comfortable seeking sponsorship to help me achieve that. I know it wouldn't even put me in the top 100 of US players, but I still think it's a real accomplishment. "

Nothing wrong with a player, of any rank, seeking (and, hopefully, obtaining) sponsorship money. That's a legitimate quest. My point is that no real sponsorship money (in the form of endorsement deals, mostly) is available for chess. The reason is that there is not enough interest from the non-playing public.

"I admit to being fascinated by the marketing side, too, but that's my professional background. I can't help that. I am always interested in what people who don't play tournament chess think about it. "

Non-players are marginally interested in chess. Anyone can see that based on the little to no-coverage chess gets in all sorts of media.

"Regardless, I concede the general argument to Irv completely. I don't think sponsorship would work for him."

The good news is that:

1. I don't think my skill level is deserving of any sponsorship money. Leave that to the truly accomplished players (IM's and GM's). As a TRULY amateur player, I show deep respect for those who excel at the game.

2. I have NEVER wanted, needed or accepted sponsorship money or help from anyone to finance my chess playing. I have played the game for fun and nothing else. It's just a game for me, from day one.

"I hope that he will respect the possibility that it can work for some individuals, even if he regards them as misguided."

I hope you do the same. And, please, be careful to distinguish REAL sponsorship from charity. You, as a person with serious disabilities, may be given money NOT because you deserve it, but as an act of compasssion. Professional players (GM's and IM's) CAN NOT rely on the generosity of compassionate folks. Neither should you, but I grant you the right to do whatever you think is best for you.

Real sponsorship is not about begging for a little money. Real sponsorship is when OUTSIDERS want to spend MEANINFUL money on chess and chess players hoping to get some benefit out of it. When a person "sponsors" you, they are not expecting anything in return. That's charity, compassion, generosity, pity, condescension, whatever...but certainly NOT sponsorship money.

"Sponsorship is a value-based proposition, but it does have a degree of subjectivity that may just not be comfortable for some players. "

Has it occurred to you that what you call "sponsorship" may be "charity" to most people?

"There is no ELO formula for sponsorship."

That's a misleading statement. The truth is that sponsorship money (when available) is specifically allocated to players, events or institutions that maximize the chance of a financial or branding reward for the sponsor. Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?

Cynical Gripe,

Such non-games occur in FIFA qualifiers all the time.

The fact is the analogy is completely sound, because it applies to any competitive situation where the final result is at stake. A draw is a tool in the chess players arsenal to secure a tournament win, as much as running the clock out in a close football game. Until you can get past the "oh one is a game, the other is a series of games brain overload", you'll never understand the point isnt to compare the details of the particular event, but just to know that the competitive result is on the line, and the strategies (boring/unfair/non-sporting however you want to categorize it) used to protect the win of the competitive event are legitimate across all sports.

Irv,

Thank you for your response. To clarify a few points...

1. I received sponsorship money before I became disabled.

2. I grant you that it is difficult at any time to distinguish "charity" from "sponsorship." Larger or ongoing sponsorship deals almost always have a quid pro quo contract, though. You'll find examples of those in the various books I've mentioned.

On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with a player at any level accepting what you would regard as charity. If both parties are satisfied with the transaction, it's honourable.

3. "Non-players are marginally interested in chess. Anyone can see that based on the little to no-coverage chess gets in all sorts of media."

On this, I do have to disagree. Chess is one of the commonly used symbols in advertising, for everything from local car dealerships to international investment banks. One of the things I used to do professionally was review surveys of symbols used in national print advertising, so I feel comfortable that there's a lot of data on this.

Tournament chess gets little or no coverage. But images of chess appear over and over.

4. "The truth is that sponsorship money (when available) is specifically allocated to players, events or institutions that maximize the chance of a financial or branding reward for the sponsor. Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?"

There you touch on exactly the most critical point for ANY individual sponsorship program. Why does the 35th highest ranked woman on the LPGA tour get any sponsor at all when Tiger Woods exists? Why does an Olympic hopeful wrestler who placed 6th at regional trials get any sponsorship?

It all comes down to sponsor expectations. Maybe they want to support someone local. Maybe they want to support someone who clearly needs the sponsorship. Maybe they don't want to compete for attention with all the other sponsors already involved with the elite. Maybe the lower ranked person is just better at working with sponsors, or that particular sponsor.

That's exactly what I meant about no ELO formula. Sponsorship is not proportionally allocated on the objective basis of playing ability, in any activity. There's more to it than that. Part of it is personality, part of it is professionalism, part of it is having done the research to know what particular sponsors want. Part of it is just luck--being in the right place at the right time with a sponsorship program ready to go.

I don't think that Cristie Kerr accepting sponsorship is, as you seem to imply, in some way disrespectful to Annika Sorenstam or Tiger Woods. Or to golf itself.

However, we may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Respectfully,
Duif

Jeez parsnips, leave off with your "brain overload" and "please, continue to impress us with your analytical skills" crap - it does nothing to strengthen your argument. What you probably do realize, but fail to admit, is that broad sweeping analogies like you're trying to make almost always fail when one starts looking at the details. I have nothing whatsoever against boring strategies so long as they don't involve collusion from your opponent. Only then do they become unfair / non-sporting.

"In all honesty, Duif, only the very best deserve and get REAL sponsorship (when there is sponsorship money avaliable, of course - that may not be the case with chess)."
Goodbye, local football team! And every other local sport!
The super-elite, of course, are born so and never need to work their way up from beginner status?
Get real, Irv, it's about media coverage, not skill. If the weak local team generates coverage then they will be sponsored.
Cf a certain Ms Kournikova, who was not sponsored due to her elite skills, but for her marketability.
"Why would anyone sponsor you or me when they can spend their money on a top player?"
'Coz they want their brand name exposed, and they will do that for anyone that can convince them that it is profitable for them to do so. They don't give a toss bout supporting the elite per se.
"Professional players (GM's and IM's) CAN NOT rely on the generosity of compassionate folks."
Which is why a rich man got elected as FIDE president, or was it his purely objective organizing skills. Plenty of tournaments sponsored by wealthy chess patrons who I doubt are getting real value for their money.

I must say that I find it comforting to learn that when one has lost the debate and antagonized all the other participants, one can always resort to expressions like "real" and "meaningful" to tell everybody how you are the only one who really understands the issue.

When all else fails, redifine reality!

All these arguments pretending that chess can be successfully marketed to the genral public (something never achieved by anyone) remind me of the common ultra-weak chessplayers who talk a big game and can articulate a good and "logical" strategy: "I can beat strong players; it's easy: you just study their favorite opening, prepare a solid line, make sure you develop your pieces according to the general priniciples, pay attention to all his maneuvers and remain active. You do that, you will be in a good position to reach an even endgame; when he overpresses, you just exploit his weaknesses and bring home the point. Remember: rooks belong behind passed pawns!".

Nice and logical, isn't it?

The result is always the same: weak player hangs a pawn by the 17 move and loses the usual way.

Same thing with chess and marketing: "Yes, you can bring money to chess. No, I have never done it, but here is the secret..."

Unfortunately, unlike chess (where there is checkmate to refute all the nonsense), there is no way to put an end to the silly argument, so anyone can claim anything he/she wants. I just go by the evidence: if it is possible, howe come nobody has ever done it anywhere in the world?

(and no, isolated cases don't count - save the saliva. Magnus Carlsen, Kasparov, etc. are the exception). Real, successful marketing of chess is about making sure there is at least some money for the average, run-of-the-mill IM or GM.

Irv,

I agree with you: there is something unusual about chess, or it would already be being done.

It's just that the discussion usually gives reasons that are clearly not true for other niche sponsorships. So I think the discussions tend to get sidetracked on things like whether it has to be a popular viewing activity, whether only elite competitors can get sponsorship, all that.

You won't find a website for an Olympic hopeful in the US that doesn't ask for sponsorship, for any sport, including things like curling and greco-roman wrestling. It's part of that culture.

But if you look at the websites for the very best US players, even people like Hikaru Nakamura, you would probably conclude that tournament players aren't allowed to have sponsors.

(The exception is Gata Kamsky's new foundation, and that's very recent. And tricky, because he's trying to set up a 501(c)(3) foundation, which again blurs charity and sponsorship, and actually puts more restrictions on how money can be spent.)

IM Greg Shahade says he has been able to bring some sponsorship to the US Chess League, so that seems to be a fact. The league's website is much more similar to what you would see elsewhere with regard to sponsors.

But you're right, hardly any one else has done it, so I think we probably do have to conclude it won't be done on a general basis in chess.

--Duif

Nobody answered my last post:
'What are the rules- I thought that you weren't allowed to play your move until your opponent pressed their clock- is this different in blitz or armageddon or did Anna break the rules at the end when she moved and pressed the clock almost the same time as Irina?'

But I am serious- if you look at the videos carefully you can see that when Anna was making those rook moves at the end she moved before Irina pressed her clock several times at the end to gain time. Their moves came out almost simultaneously sometimes. Is this fair and legal?
Is this now considered fair enough in blitz?"
-Posted by: REMIT at May 24, 2008 15:17

This is called cheating. And it's not some skittles game in the park, either. It's a national title and, effectively, a robbery.

In which case, Irina's reaction is not only justified, but kind of mild.

"....a lot of discord could be avoided in the future by having a 3-5 second delay in the Armageddon game at the end of such a tournament."

Yes, a 3 second delay would be preferable, in that the "Armageddon" game would be less likely to degenerate into a farce. Frankly, an Armegeddon game should be a last resort, and only contested after several sets of regular Blitz games have been played.

Actually, it would make more sense to play Blitz or Armageddon play-offs over networked PCs.

The advantages is that no matter how fast the players move, they wouldn't be able knock over pieces. Plus, the Clock is "punched" automatically, at the moment when the chess piece is dropped by the mouse. Then, there wouldn't be situations where there are silly repetitive moves, due merely to the proximity of the piece to the Chess Clock. Finally, the Interface could be set to NOT allow "pre-moving"; something that could be enforced because the players are using a digital platform. This would prevent Zatonskih's (unintentional?) breach of chess etiquette, which a normal Armageddon scenario practically invites.

I think that the point that has been proved is that, unintentional or not, this was not just a breech of chess etiquette, it is a serious injustice.
Anna's premoves saved her precious time on her clock.
This time amounted to more than that which she won by.
She therefore would have flagged BEFORE Irina, had she followed the rules of the game.
And it would be Irina who would be getting the congratulations as the legitimate women's champion.
But she didn't follow the rules; she saved time on her clock (unintentionally or not) by moving on Irina's time; and she was declared the winner when Irina's time ran out.
The TD said nothing. Maybe he didn't realize what had happened. But now it is there for all the chess world to see.
This is more than the question of, did Gary's fingers leave the knight for afew milliseconds. This concerns a national title, and it seems to me that there is evidence that Irina was robbed of a justly earned victory.

I don't think post-mortems of blitz games are that useful. Both players were moving quickly and were under enormous pressure, given the stakes. No one protested anything during the game.

I agree with the previous posters who suggest that blitz armageddon games are not a good way to decide a national championship. However, there is perhaps one silver lining to this particular blitz play-off, which is that Krush and Zatonskih played fighting chess throughout the tournament and kept fighting to the bitter end.

Rather than criticize them for a moment of disappointment or their conduct under extreme pressure, maybe we could be grateful for their fighting spirit. And for the fact that for the first time in U.S. history, we have two women playing chess at or very near the GM level.

I'm with Doug on using computers for such ocasions, it seems a very good idea.

For those here using words like robbery and cheating, I have one question: Have you ever played blitz?

just wondering...

Danica Patrick seems to be allowed to get mad sometimes.

(Yahoo, May 25, 2008)

"Kanaan was seething, but his display of anger was nothing compared to Patrick’s after she was run into by Ryan Briscoe while trying to leave pit lane late in the race.

A furious Patrick then got out of her car and walked purposefully toward Briscoe’s pit for what was shaping up as a confrontation with his crew. She removed her gloves and seemed ready to rumble before track security personnel directed her back to her own pit area.

“I was ready to take it all off, my helmet and everything—because it’s hard to talk through the helmet,” Patrick said. “It’s probably a better idea that I didn’t make it all the way down there anyway because, well, as you guys know, I’m a little emotional.”

Patrick said she was waiting for Briscoe to come talk to her about the incident. After watching a replay, Briscoe seemed convinced that Patrick had plenty of room to move over and didn’t seem willing to offer an apology."

And Quely, some of us have played blitz but we save the tricks and cheating for fun with friends, not for formal tournaments.

My point is that in a time scramble, there is not a single normal person out there who thinks: "Oh I better watch that I do not touch somenting before my opponent has pressed his clock".

Get real, you are under five different types of pressure, your competitive instincts are kicking and everything is happening at lightning speed.

Of course blitz to decide championships is a farce, but it is unfair to blame the players caught in the heat of the moment.

FIDE Blitz rules incorporate FIDE Rapidplay rules. FIDE Rapidplay rules require a claim to be made by the player before any rules about the movement of pieces are enforced.

No claim was made. That's the end of that.

I admire Irina Krush's acheivements and admit that she--and any player in the championships--could kick my ass blindflded while giving pawn and move odds.

That being said, in any real sport, a player throwing a piece of eqipment full force into a spectator warrants a suspension.

Every time.

No matter how mad you are.

No matter how mad you have a right to be.

No matter how sorry you are afterwards.

No matter if you didn't mean it.

Period.

Full stop.

Brennan,

It is beyond silly to compare a rook flying at knee height after being swept off a chess board by the back of a hand, to 'throwing a piece of equipment full force'.

What? A hockey stick? A javelin? A helmet? A discus?

"What? A hockey stick? A javelin? A helmet? A discus?"

In the case of chess, a king.

"Short, of course, went from there all the way to get wiped out by Kasparov after helping split the chess world."

Kasparov should be absolved of all blame because the split was Short's idea. (As a five-year-old I often used this argument so it would be hypocritical of me to reject it now.)

Sweeping a chess piece off the board.

With your hand.

Is EXACTLY the same.

As throwing it full force at a spectator.

Period.

Full Stop.

"That being said, in any real sport, a player throwing a piece of eqipment full force into a spectator warrants a suspension."

Yes, the USCF ought to slap Krush with a one week suspension from participating in any officially sponsored USCF events. Satisfied?

Sheesh, one would think that she was pulling another Ronnie Artest, or something...

"Of course blitz to decide championships is a farce, but it is unfair to blame the players caught in the heat of the moment."

The Armageddon structure itself is the major contributing factor that leads to such an unsatisfying conclusion. Under any normal circumstances, the players would probably have agreed to a draw in that situation. That option was foreclosed--at least for Krush. So the competition devolves, from something resembling Chess, to a game of "Clock Slap".

They played a series of Tie-break games, and the tie was not broken. At that point, wouldn't it make sense to revert to a mathematical tie-break system, which after all is based on the performance of the players during the main event itself? Even flipping a coin would be preferable to the randomness of the result of the "Clock slap" competition that ensued.

It is true that had Krush kept a cool head, that she would have simply restarted her opponent's clock, or else stopped the clocks to make a claim. However, in the heat of the competition, with a few seconds left, it is hard to expect a player to readjust their focus from the movement of pieces on the board.

I see no reason why the "time bid" process can't work, even if both sides are to be accorded a couple of seconds of time delay per move.

There is a difference between being on the margin of moving the piece as the opponent presses the clock to being on the margin of moving the piece as your opponent is moving theirs. I think that one can easily aim for the former and get nowhere near the latter- so there is no argument to do with the heat of the battle- simply don't have your hand hovering ready to move at the same time should give enough time for the opponent to press the clock. (this is actually against the rules in itself strictly speaking- obstructing the board etc.)

Delay is a good solution too, also simply enforce rules of not intentionally moving almost the same time as the opponent- if your hand rushes to the board after the opponent let go of their piece the delay would probably be enough for them to push the clock before you touch your piece.

I think I speak for many of us when I say that, long ago, at an early age, I descended deep into the pit of chess geekdom, from which there is no escape.

Still, it surprises even a hardcore chessnerd like me how much enjoyment there is to be derived from videos of big-name players playing. Krush's postgame comportment aside (I think it was perfectly understandable and not terribly outrageous), the video of her game with Zatonskih is fun to watch. As is even a slow game between, say, Topalov and Ivanchuk. It's neat to see these people think.

The sad thing about the Krush-Zatonskih game is that it seems to have been played in a crummy little hotel conference room with only a handful of tired spectators attending. I dunno, just seems like there should be more fanfare--maybe a stage at least--for a game deciding a US Championship.

Previously I had seen another video of the Krush-Zatonskih game, shot from a different angle, in which all you see is Krush storming off after the game.

But I just watched the other video, in which you clearly see Krush smack the white king clear across the room.

Wow. Talk about chess ninjas: she used her secret martial arts skills to turn an ordinary chess piece into a potentially lethal projectile.

Still, I admire her competitive spirit.

"Sweeping a chess piece off the board.
With your hand.
Is EXACTLY the same.
As throwing it full force at a spectator.
Period.
Full Stop."

Quite so. In fact, this explains the current trend in major league baseball of pitchers sweeping the ball from the palm of the left hand.

I'm certain 110 mph pitches are not long coming...

Krush should marry Korchnoi-- they'd get along great, save the fact Korchnoi isn't a hermaphrodite. What a sore loser.

The only sense in which Irina and Korchnoi are comparable is the way the chess community reacts to their displays of temper.
Korchnoi gets a cute nickname, "Victor the Terrible," while Irina gets pillaried by insecure nerds who have a problem with a woman showing some passion.
And that's about as far as it goes.
Irina is a model of ethical conduct and sportsmanship. No one plays her with the fear that, if they defeat her, she will berate them and tell them they know nothing about chess or the like.
Yet this is the usual experience of players who sit down to play Korchnoi.
To the holier-than-thou patzers who excoriate her for her frustrated swipe of her king, one must ask: what would you do if you have just been cheated out of a win? And not only in a relatively meaningless weekend Swiss, but for a national title for which you have been working long hours and putting in untold amounts of time and energy?
Anna seems to have managed to make THREE moves with one second left on her clock. Show me how this is possible; and we are back in the twilight zone of The Magic Bullet, the Grassy Knoll, and The Lone Gunman Theory. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
Unless, of course, you are moving your pieces when your clock isn't running.

I agree that Zatonskih must have been moving her pieces on Krush's clock, probably while Krush's hand was moving from the piece to the clock. But, to quote Dick Cheney, "So?" As a threshold point, IF this was against the rules, then in any case Krush did not make a claim, so it's a dead issue, just as it would be if the tape showed that Zatonskih had left her king in check or moved her bishop from a light square to a dark square. Also, the FACT that Krush did not make a claim suggests to me that this was not really the obvious case of "cheating" that you think it was.

Because we are curious people, we might also ask, "Was this against the rules at the time?" In fact, we might want to focus the question more closely: "Was this (a) NOT against the rules at the time? (b) a violation of the rules, but one which Zatonskih might have believed was legal, or might have committed inadvertently? (c) a willful and deliberate violation of the rules?" I think that only (c) counts as "cheating" in the way the term has been used here.

Now, it's interesting to me that so far as I have noticed, nobody who is an experienced TD at blitz events has written either here or on the USCF forums to say, "Yes, as a TD I can tell you that this is against USCF (or FIDE) rules and I have penalized such behavior in tournaments I have directed, when the opponent made a claim." I don't claim to have read every post. Maybe someone said this and I missed it.

But anyway, there is apparently an argument about whether USCF or FIDE rules would apply to the matter, because the tournament was FIDE-rated. This MAY be a case in which the rules are in conflict. And I have seen knowledgeable people on both sides argue vociferously that "of course USCF rules apply" and "of course FIDE rules apply." Now, according to Gijssen, an experienced arbiter, FIDE rules do NOT prohibit moving on your opponent's clock after your opponent's move is determined, as long as the opponent is allowed to press the clock. Well, if there was ENOUGH ambiguity about whether FIDE or USCF rules applied (I don't see it actually spelled out anywhere in the pre-tournament publicity?) that reasonable people can argue about it or now, then I think Zatonskih HAS to be given the benefit of the doubt and should not be called a "cheater". She may have thought that "pre-moving" was legal under USCF rules. (By the way, in skittles clock blitz games, nobody has ever told me "You have to wait until I hit my clock before you touch your piece.") She may have thought that FIDE rules applied on this point, in which case pre-moving was legal at least according to Gijssen.

Semifinally, if one sees that your opponent has two seconds left on his/her clock and is aimlessly premoving his/her rook, it seems to me that the thing to do is to put his/her king in check with anything that is at hand. This will either force him/her to think about his/her move and lose the game, or induce him/her to make an illegal move. Parenthetically, Braunlich is mistaken when he writes that because of the draw odds Black could move aimlessly while White had to try to win on the board. When you and your opponent are both below 10 seconds in sudden death, you are no longer trying to win on the board, you are trying to avoid any mate that your opponent may have, make legal moves, cause your opponent to take time, and flag your opponent. This is bullet chess, not real chess. It looks like Zatonskih adjusted to this faster/better than Krush did.

Finally, looking ahead, the obvious REAL point to all this is that no matter WHAT one thinks of rapid playoffs and/or Armageddon games, we can AT LEAST all agree that a sudden-death no-delay blitz Armageddon game is a silly way to decide a title. The wise Bill Smythe pithily writes on the USCF forum that a 2-sec delay clock would have avoided all this hassle, and he's right.

So...I can't find whether USCF or FIDE rules applied. The below recap is based on USCF rules, for those interested in the technicalities of who can move and when.

(USCF 6) covers "the move." White moves, then players alternate. A player is "on move" when the oppononent's move is _completed._

(USCF 9) explains a Determined Move (hand released the piece, pieces rests on a legal square) and a Completed Move (player presses the clock). The USCF supplement on Blitz Chess reiterates this standard.

(USCF 10B) states that Touch Move applies to the player "on move." Therefore touching pieces on the opponent's time could be considered "annoying behavior."

(USCF 20G) forbids annoying behavior, and empowers the TD to impose penalties upon receiving complaints.

The end result...making your move before your opponent completes his/her move is illegal, and could fall into the annoying behavior category subject to penalties. If this annoys you, then you can stop the clock and register a complaint with the TD.

This behavior is commonplace in blitz games -- I would hesitate to go any farther than a warning the first few complaints until it's established that a player isn't making complaints just to rattle his/her opponent.

In the Krush-Zatonskih case, video can confirm whether one or both players were moving prior to an opponent's completed move. Unfortunately no claim was made onsite.

See Krush's open letter to the USCF at the below link. Zatonskih indicates she will reply with her own letter.

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8475/456

USCFTD, thanks for your comment and for apprising us of the Krush letter.

A propos of the USCF/FIDE rules issue, I ran across a discussion of the Round 2 "Ivanovscorekeepinggate" dispute, which apparently also involved the question of whether FIDE or USCF rules applied, and apparently in that case it was just as unclear. Maybe nobody ever really sat down and decided the matter ahead of time...? This is at http://monroi.com/chess-blog/chess-experts/chris-bird-blog/119-chris-bird-blog/464-fide-or-uscf-chess-rules.html .

On your USCF legal analysis, I think it's interesting but not airtight. If this is what the rules say, then what I take away from it is that the people writing the rules didn't (adequately) really consider the issue of "pre-moving" in blitz. If my opponent captures my pawn and I sweep out and instantly recapture before he has even hit the clock, it doesn't seem to me that the real issue is whether this was "annoying behavior". Clearly I wasn't trying to "annoy" him, I was trying to make my move as quickly as I could and lose as little time as possible on my clock. The real issues are: what is the legal status of my recapture? Has my purported capture, involving my hand movements when I was not "on move" under Rule 6, really taken place? Is that my move, or have I moved at all? If not, am I obliged to put the pawns back in place on my own time, as they were before the recapture, and then make the recapture over again and press my clock? If, as you suggest, "Touch Move" (Rule 10B) does not apply (because I was not on move), does this mean that I have the right to put the pieces back and make some other move entirely? I bet THAT would cause controversy. And what about the clock issue?

See, here's the thing. The issue of "moving on the opponent's time" is not some rare or theoretical event. It is, as you say, "commonplace". In that case, if it's supposed to be illegal, why isn't there a rule explaining specifically that it IS illegal and what the remedy for a violation is? Why leave it all in the realm of inferences? Isn't it reasonable to assume that "commonplace" behavior is legal in the absence of a rule specifically addressing it? The argument about who is "on move" and what might constitute "annoying behavior" seems a little bit of a stretch if it is going to be used to impose a specific obligation on blitz players that "you must not touch a piece until your opponent has fully pressed his/her clock".

Still, you're the TD and I'm not. I wonder what Tim Just says about this?

If it is legal to move on one's opponent's time, doesn't this pretty much make time controls a joke?
In her letter, Irina writes of her amazement as her time advantage somehow evaporated. How could this be?
It's easy enough to explain...once you get over the shock that your opponent was using your time to make her moves.
The expectations that Irina should have filed a complaint then and there totally ignore the situation.
Whatever one may think of that, the fact is that Anna was awarded the title, and she was awarded it directly based on the result of a game that she won by illegitimate means.
Comparing what happened here to skittles (!!!) is the kind of thing that would cause you to flunk the Miller Analogies Test.
And it's more than annoying behavior we are talking about here. It's that Anna had one second left on her clock, and somehow managed to make three moves. Just how much time was left on her clock when Irina's time expired?
Clocks are there for a reason; or they're just something else for sponsors to make money on. I submit that the reason clocks are used,no matter what the time control is, is to give each player a specified amount of time to make their moves. If a player makes their moves on another person's time, that undermines the fundamental reason for having a clock in the first place.
So Anna is no more, and indeed, from her behavior, mush less, the real 2008 US Women's Champion than her competition. Nothing will erase the fact that to state otherwise is to acknowledge an illegitimate title, unfairly won, and arrogantly maintained.

Brenan, the theory of time controls is that they prevent you from spending MORE than a certain amount of time thinking of your move. It is to prevent people from taking a LONG time to think and moving SLOWLY.

If you "pre-move", you are spending LESS than the normal amount of time thinking of your move and making it. You are taking a SHORT time to think and moving QUICKLY. Honestly, on the face of it, I don't see why it's desirable for "pre-moving" to be illegal, particularly in sudden-death time controls (which can of course be eliminated by the use of delay clocks), as long as it does not actually interfere with your opponent's making his/her own move and pressing his/her own clock.

By the way, if you look at the video of the Petrosian-Akopian playoff from Chicago, you might see a couple places where they come very close to "pre-moving", and I don't get the impression that either player is actually waiting for the other one to hit his clock - they are using the other player's "determined moves" as cues to move themselves. Or that's how it looks to me anyway.

Your assertion that Zatonskih won her title "unfairly" and maintains it "arrogantly" strikes me as a little high-handed and premature, given that we don't know what is going to be in her letter which we know is coming. Is her side of the story so irrelevant? Suppose she writes, "I assumed FIDE rules applied and I was informed by Mr. Gijssen that pre-moving was legal under FIDE rules?" Then what do you say?

I would have thought that it was a cut and dry case until you gave the bizarre (as it appears to me) interpretation of Mr Gijssen.

I still don't see any answer to my analysis of actual FIDE handbook (an earlier post of mine):

"According to the FIDE handbook http://www.fide.com/info/handbook?id=32&view=category
'Article 6.8 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent`s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.'

This last part is important- the vital time period we are talking about is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player. It is not yet the opponent's allotted time. But then it is if the opponent has also just moved- so it is the allotted time of both at the same time until the clocks are pressed? That would not make sense.

Not to mention I don't think that it is logical to have two players in the middle of making their moves at the same time- the move is not completed until the clock is pressed.

There are also issues regarding even having your hands hovering over the board or causing distraction in your opponent's time, which moving a piece would probably contravene too. '

So (i)explain how it makes sense for it to be both players' allotted time at the same time which would be the case before clocks are pressed after premove. This to me is the checkmate point as allotted time loses its meaning if both players can have it simultaneously.

(ii)explain how both players being in the middle of making their moves at the same time can make sense. (the move is only considered complated once the clock is pressed)

(iii)When your opponent is still moving, you can't strictly speaking even have your hand hovering over pieces, let alone moving them. Explain why this rule can be broken too.

Theodulf, if you look at the video, what you see is what is there. What Anna has to say is kind of just gloss on the photographic evidence.
That's kind of obvious, so I think it's not high-handed to say that Anna won her title unfairly.
She could have responded to Irina privately and chose not to. That's kind of arrogant, don't you think?
But this all points out the inadequate job that whoever devised this ludicrous system did. It is entirely feasible that both players got caught up in a system that is wholly inadequate for determining a chess crown. That some people have seen fit to make analogies to skittles and Friday night blitz tournaments points up the ridiculous nature of this manner of deciding a title.
Irina has indicated her willingness to play a match at standard time controls. Let's see if Anna is willing to accept this offer.

REMIT: thanks for bringing up these points. If you look at the FIDE handbook, you will see a crucial distinction between the FIDE definition of the "move" and the USCF definition of the "move". In the USCF definition of the "move", it INCLUDES pressing the clock. The "move" is "determined" when you release the piece(s), and it is "completed" when you press the clock.

The FIDE concept is rather different. In the FIDE handbook, at 4.6 (capitals added by me for emphasis):

"The move is considered to have been MADE when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled."

That is, the piece is released on the square, captured pieces have been removed, etc. The "move" is MADE when the physical move is made on the board. Pressing the clock is NOT part of "making" the move. The clock is not discussed in Article 3 and doesn't appear until later. Furthermore, at 1.1:

"A player is said to `have the move`, when his opponent`s move has been ’MADE’."

That clearly states that if you capture my pawn, I 'have the move' as soon as you have made the capture ON THE BOARD, which clearly implies that I am free to go ahead and recapture IMMEDIATELY.

The clock is then discussed at Article 6:

"[E]ach player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time."

So the point is that the moves must be "made", on the board that is, in the allotted period of time. Under the FIDE concept, however, that means that the rules have to go on and EXPLAIN that the period between the "making" of the move and the stopping of the clock is ALSO part of the player's allotted time. So, at 6.8:

"His move is not considered to have been COMPLETED until he has [hit the clock], unless the move that WAS MADE ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2)
The time between MAKING the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player."

So, you capture my pawn. Your move is "MADE", but not yet "COMPLETED". However, nothing says that I do not now "have the move" under 1.1. So I can go ahead and "make" my move while you are "completing" your move by stopping your clock. If FIDE wants to change this, they should change 1.1 so that it reads that "A player is said to `have the move`, when his opponent`s move has been ’COMPLETED’", which would be pretty much what the USCF rules DO say.

This maybe helps account for Mr. Gijssen's interpretation of FIDE rules, which you called "bizarre". It may or may not be right, but I think it's defensible. As to your questions:

(i) It is not "both players' allotted time at the same time". Rule 6.8 states that it is player A's allotted time until he/she presses the clock, after which it is player B's allotted time. But that doesn't mean that player B can't do anything, since 1.1, which says when player B is on move doesn't refer to the clock or to allotted time. It refers to the player A's move having been MADE.

(ii) Both players are not in the middle of MAKING their moves at the same time. Player A has MADE his/her move but has not COMPLETED it. Player B can now MAKE his/her move.

(iii) Player A is not still MAKING his/her move, so therefore the rules against hand hovering and moving pieces don't apply.

From a historical point of view, it seems that the FIDE rules are essentially pre-clock rules with the clock grafted on, while the USCF rules incorporate the clock integrally in the whole concept of the move. This means that, in future events, it's very important to make clear WHICH rules are being followed at an event like this.

Theodulf, thanks for answering. I think you misunderstood what I was saying on the rules on allotted time. Player A makes his move- it is his allotted time. Suppose Player B makes his move before Player A presses the clock. By the same rule it is player B's allotted time until he presses the clock too. So from the point Player B makes his move until Player A presses the clock- it is both their allotted times by 6.8. The same rule applies to both once they moved. This is where it particularly seems not to make sense if you could do that.

By the way in order to press the clock so soon after the opponent one is likely to have their hand hovering over pieces ready to move before their opponet had even finished her move on the board- so even with the rule as you say it I think it frequently covers cases like this. I think Anna did have her hand ready over her rook for instance.

I think the time it takes for your hand to approach a piece is not less than to press a clock after moving.

By the way, a comment was posted in response to Krush's letter at uschess.org, which I briefly excerpt here (much more at the original):

"I have directed hundreds of blitz tournaments over the past 15 years and helped write the new USCF Blitz rules that are a modifcation of the old WBCA rules.

"After watching the video several times, there was nothing illegal except for the piece being knocked over and not replaced. ....

"I clearly saw Anna making moves while Irina was moving and you can see Irina doing the same thing. This is not illegal."

Signed by Michael Atkins.

Assuming the above statements are all true, then at least one experienced USCF blitz TD thinks that premove is legal even under USCF rules. Of course other TDs might disagree! I think the rules should be clarified.

I would think it's also rather clearly against the rules to knock over the pieces and not pick them up on your own time.

If you watch the video, Irina seems to do this twice - with her pawn on b2 (which she then sets right by taking the pawn on c3) and with the rook on d7 (looks like d7 from the side, but not sure).

There's also an instance where Irina takes a pawn (on b6, I believe), but the rook slides up to b5. It's hard to say, from my vantage point, whether she put the rook on the right square on her own time.

It looks to me like both sides unintentionally bent the rules. That an Armageddon game had to be played is unfortunate, but in my view, the rules said such a game should be played, and so the result should stand.

REMIT: but the whole point of Rule 6.8 is that it -defines- when the allotted time switches from player A to player B. It doesn't switch when player A's move is MADE. It switches when player A's move is COMPLETED, that is, when A hits the clock. The rules say that player A MUST be allowed to hit the clock. And it switches back when player B hits the clock. So there's never any controversy over whose allotted time it is - you look and see whose clock is ticking. The question is, though, is it legal to begin to MAKE the move on the board on your opponent's allotted time? And although you might intuitively think that you shouldn't be allowed to do that, there's nothing in the FIDE rules that say, A player has the move "when his/her allotted time starts." The rules say, a player has the move "when the opponent's move has been MADE."

Although it's entirely possible that some experienced Int'l Arbiter will come along and disagree with this interpretation, I suppose :-)

That might be what was intended. But if you go by what it literally says "The time between making the move on the chessboard and stopping his own clock and starting his opponent`s clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player." actually means it is player B's allotted time once he starts his move until he presses his clock in the same way. It does not say "unless you happen to move before your opponent has pressed his clock" which I think suggests that it did not consider that as an option. If it does than the literal meaning is that both players have concurrent allotted time at that point- even if that was not the intended meaning.

Theodulf, if you look at the video, what you see is what is there. What Anna has to say is kind of just gloss on the photographic evidence.
That's kind of obvious, so I think it's not high-handed to say that Anna won her title unfairly.
She could have responded to Irina privately and chose not to. That's kind of arrogant, don't you think?
But this all points out the inadequate job that whoever devised this ludicrous system did. It is entirely feasible that both players got caught up in a system that is wholly inadequate for determining a chess crown. That some people have seen fit to make analogies to skittles and Friday night blitz tournaments points up the ridiculous nature of this manner of deciding a title.
Irina has indicated her willingness to play a match at standard time controls. Let's see if Anna is willing to accept this offer.
Posted by: Brenan at May 30, 2008 16:30

Irina stop posting as this fake name no one really cares what you think. You lost, stop crying believe it or not, you are not God's gift to humanity and occasionally you aren't going to win, and the sooner you realize that it's likely you might improve and become a better person just from that. Of course YOU are willing to play a match at standard controls to redecide things given you lost the playoff, the way you and everyone else agreed to have it played by the agreement you signed before the tourney. what losing player wouldn't want a second chance at any time control after he/she lost? Somehow, I don't think if you'd won, you'd be agreeing to have another playoff of any nature however your victorty might have occurred.

Again you lost, get over it and work on your attitude. If you seriously expect everyone to believe that your reaction after you lost was not a result of your losing as you say in your letter, then you really are more delusional then that letter itself already suggests.

"The argument about who is "on move" and what might constitute "annoying behavior" seems a little bit of a stretch if it is going to be used to impose a specific obligation on blitz players that "you must not touch a piece until your opponent has fully pressed his/her clock.

Still, you're the TD and I'm not. I wonder what Tim Just says about this?"
-Posted by: Theodulf at May 30, 2008 14:05

Moving on your opponent's time is a recipe for disaster, and it's hard to believe this very situation has not been anticipated in the rulebooks. In my opinion, merely classifying it as "annoying behavior", a warnable offence, is not strong enough; it should be explicitly forbidden and considered grounds for immediate disqualification because it's not the sort of thing that can be easily corrected during mutual time trouble.

Throughout history mistakes have been made in numerous ways that affected the outcome of a championship, or important game. A runner called safe in the ninth inning when he was clearly out allowed the team to win the World Series. A college football team given five "downs" to finally score and win. A presidential race where the candidate with the most votes lost.

Whether it's the rules, an error by a ref, or a player cheating, the better player sometimes loses. Perhaps in chess a blitz game should never be used to decide a championship. In retrospect, it would have been better to delay and promote the playoff, but low budget and minimal exposure was a factor.

On the good side, the women's championship is getting more attention than it otherwise would have. Irina, most will agree that you were the stronger, better player in the tournament. You are a class act and have always carried yourself well. Good luck to you!

To the Anonymous poster at 5/30 20:49: you're gratuitously insulting Irina either through cluelessness or through nasty snideness. In case you're clueless: there is no chance that "Brenan" is really Irina. "Brenan" is the real Brenan and has been posting regularly on the USCF forums, which require login and password, for ages now. If you're just being nasty and snide: Krush hasn't convinced me that action is required, but I think her claims are sincere and raise important questions and deserve to be dealt with respectfully. She and Zatonskih are the ones who were playing the games we were watching with admiration. Not, probably, you.

No, I am not Irina. I only wish I could play chess as well as she does! I can't even come close.
I can, however, write. I do find the situation, where a player can make three moves in one second and win the game, somewhat puzzling.
I think the facts are these:
1. Anna moved on Irina's time.
2. This allowed her to win the game on time.
3. Which otherwise she could not have done.
I think these facts are beyond dispute. Some question the legality of what she did. Some do not. Some point out that Irina should have made her objection at the time; I think that the reason she did not is perfectly understandable.
What this DOES amount to is that Anna's title, while it may be technically hers, is certainly not legitimately hers.
The best analogous situation is chess that I can think of is when Karpov was declared world champion by FIDE when Bobby did not defend his title. Was he a paper champion? Whatever he was, he set out to show that he was worthy of the title.
Anna has a chance to do this by accepting Irina's offer of a match. Otherwise, she is about as much of a champion as Ruslan whats-his-name, and indeed probably less deserving as well.

The blitz games are exciting and fun to play and watch, but it is a nutty way to decide a champion.

Brenan, those are strong words. I just want to remind you that it looks like Irina rather clearly broke the rules during the game. I wonder why people aren't discussing this at all, and just taking her claims at face value.

"I would think it's also rather clearly against the rules to knock over the pieces and not pick them up on your own time.

If you watch the video, Irina seems to do this twice - with her pawn on b2 (which she then sets right by taking the pawn on c3) and with the rook on d7 (looks like d7 from the side, but not sure).

There's also an instance where Irina takes a pawn (on b6, I believe), but the rook slides up to b5. It's hard to say, from my vantage point, whether she put the rook on the right square on her own time.

Posted by: vsb at May 30, 2008 17:40"

Re: whether premoving is normal, here is some footage of a random blitz game that I found on youtube - Kosteniuk - Belezky.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gDlLmfC2Yzo

Yes it's just a game in the park, but it does show that pre-moving is apparently widespread and normal. Just look at the opening, they both easily finish their moves before the other has pressed the clock.

Here's another one, looks more serious:

Harikrishna - Morozevich
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vNjCZGoBKiU

From around 7'00 they start blitzing out moves and on several occasions they've made their move before the other has pressed the clock.

All this is to not to say that Krush is right or wrong - just that the precedent is not with Krush. 'Premoving' in the opponent's time appears fairly common practice and until now, no-one cared.

IF pre-moving is indeed OK in blitz, as Mike Atkins (a respected TD) suggests, it makes the use of such a method to determine a national championship even more ludicrous. For then it does turn the participants into the "clock punching monkeys" of which Irina wrote (one of whom she was photographed with a year ago at Gibraltar -- and I am not talking about the Dean of Chess or Kaidanov!).
Were the players aware of the specific rules governing the Armageddon game? Are there indeed ANY specific rules that govern this chess variant? Because it is not, strictly speaking, blitz since Black has draw odds and there is a time imbalance.
If the organizers and TD "just assume" that the players "know" the rules under which this particular and weird game would be played, that is a big assumption indeed.
With, in this case, tragic results for both players.
But....
If we HAVE to play fast games, at least take IM Larry Kaufman's suggestion and put a decent increment in there. Drop the stupid concept of an Armageddon game (and just whom do we have to thank for this fiasco this year? Hmmmmmmmmmmm). Honor Bobby's memory by insisting that the winner be the first person to WIN six or ten games. Play the next day, and set aside a special fund to play for the necessary rooms. If there is no need for the money, it can be added to the winner's purse.
By the way:
(Was there even a semblance of a tribute to Bobby at the championship this year? Or is the USCF, that body that was in such a fever to distance itself from Bobby when he was alive but seeks to make some hay off of his death in terms of new and returning member discounts, just too inconsiderate to even think of that?)

Yeah this Anna thing i sooo big, it reminds me of the great controversy over the USA Men's croshee title of 1979 when a double loop was used in place of a single for the final stitch.

To Theodulf's points on and since May 30 14:05...

Totally agreed that the conclusion on annoyance is not airtight, which is why I think we can already see many different viewpoints on the USCF message boards. Also agreed that touch move is in effect whether your on move or not. My thought train was simply an avenue to arrive at a "TD's choice" since no definitive conclusion exists under present rules -- definitely not as good as an ironclad penalty, but better than silence. I too would be interested in what Mr. Just has to say on the matter. We could only hope that established players and TDs can agree that the INTENT is that player A completes their move by punching the clock before player B touches their chosen piece, even if the rules don't clearly state this. I can see the novice section at your local club being lax on this point, but certainly a US Championship should be held to the highest standards.

Until the rules are clarified through a Supplement or Revision I would think it's best for TD's to be very clear about their interpretation and potential penalties at the beginning of Blitz tournaments or rounds.

Has it been verified from the video that both players did some pre-moves?

I wonder how much Internet play influences all this, since most players, even IMs and GMs, probably play more blitz online than in person these days. And online there is no issue of "distracting the opponent."

I agree that an Armageddon game coming at the end of a series of tied blitz games sequences (as happened here) is rarely going to be much less random than just flipping a coin or spinning a roulette wheel. The players have played to an even score to that point, and, on that day at least, are unable to break the tie on the board.

An Armageddon game gives the illusion that it is chess that is deciding the contest, but I think it is just an illusion in most cases.

Back in the 90s when I was working on the USCF site, the players were near unanimous in preferring blitz games to coin flips as tie breakers, though. I suspect that preference will extend theoretically to Armageddon games--that is, those who haven't had to play one will think it's better than chance as a tiebreaker. I wonder if the opinion is different among those who actually have participated in one?

Duif

Oh, Irina, Irina. For goodness' sake, let it go.

Who on earth can have put Krush up to this? Anyone who has ever played blitz or watched any time scrambles knows that people pre-move absolutely all the time. I've never heard anyone suggest it was illegal, for all sorts of obvious reasons.

What is NOT on is knocking the pieces over and carrying on playing - you set them up in your own time. Everyone knows this too. Krush clearly does this at least once. If anyone broke the rules, it was her.

I can't believe the people on this thread who are making an issue of this, let alone throwing expressions like 'cheating' and 'robbery'. They either know nothing about the game or they're tournament directors, which of course is usually the same thing. But that pales into insignificance besides Irina making a fool of herself in this fashion, because she does know better.

Hey ho. If Zatonskih has any sense she won't reply at all.

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8476/456

Here's some comment from the organisers, in case anyone's interested.

This Mike Atkins chap is right. Anyone who hasn't seen much worse hasn't watched much blitz.

Just seen USCF TD's comments. LOL. Are you really a TD? Too good to be true. You couldn't have proved my point above more perfectly.

Amazing how many excuses are being made for somebody who bent the rules to win.

Apparently it's ok to cheat, but it's not ok to not shake hands with the cheater afterwards.
Brilliant.

PS: and to john darius, the only one crying is you, here.

yes, I agree with everyone who says that Krush is out of her mind with this letter. most were being nice enough to forgive her for her 3 year old behavior after she lost despite how completely unprofessional and unsporting it was, but then throw this ridiculous whining on top when by all indications (all competent people like M Atkins who have a clue what they are talking about and not people like Brenan Niernan etc. who are probably in love with Irina for goodness knows what reason) have definitively shown the only person to break the rules was her. so she's the only one who breaks the rules (i.e. the only cheater there if there was one), STILL loses, and then has the gall to complain that her opponent cheated her and demand a share of the title?? now that's what some people might call humorous. to everyone saying, "i don't see what's wrong with declaring them co-champions", there is a very simple reason why that's wrong: all the players agreed to that playoff format before the tourney, and it took place as stated. if you lose the playoff, accept it, and move on; you have no right to demand a share of the title since you feel the playoff format was a bad way to decide it. if you think that then bring it up before the tournament, or refuse to play in the tournament. you don't whine that it was an unfair format after you lose at it, and demand a change after the fact, this isn't elementary school. get it changed next year if you think it's dumb, but again trying to degrade someone else's well earned title by saying that the playoff format sucks (which of course is an opinion mostly created from the fact that you lost with it) is a completely unsporting gesture.

I think the main 'excuse' being made, trm, is that nothing illegal occurred. Although someone above - Theodulf, I think - also pointed out that inadvertently doing something contrary to the rules is not cheating, which seems lost on you. But the main point is that nothing remotely illegal or rule-bending happened.

Some other thoughts:

1.Why on earth does the USCF have separate rules? It seems pointless and a recipe for confusion.

2. One indication from the rules that it is legal to start moving once your opponent's piece is quitted (among many) is rule 6(d) to the effect that a player must be allowed to press his clock after each move. If the draftsman had not envisaged that the other might have already moved and be ready to press his own clock, this provision would be otiose.

3. I've seen both these two play a fair bit and Zatonskih has the better nerves and is an inveterate and successful time scramble artist, extremely quick-moving when it matters and reasonably good on the board too, and whereas Krush doesn't play so well in scrambles. What happened wasn't a fluke: rightly or wrongly the organisers want the title decided in the end by these qualities and if the same thing happened again Zatonskih would likely win again.

4. If Krush is right that she was required to specify the time and Zatonskih allowed to pick the colour then clearly this is wrong. It is an advantage to go second in such bidding and who goes first has to be randomly decided. To see this, imagine that player A thinks that 6-4 is the fair ratio, and player B 6-4.5. If player A names the times then player B will of course choose White at 6-4. If player B goes first then naturally player A will choose Black, and the result will be player B playing White at 6-4.5. The outcome of the auction is different in each case and less favourable to whoever goes first.

So anyway, is Irina's surname pronounced "Kroosh" or "Crush"?

For high importance Armageddon games I suggest that the game be played on two computers - as in the Melody Amber blindfold games (except with sight of the board of course).

Avoids all problems of pre-moving, knocking off rooks etc. Instead of requiring skills of moving and punching clock instantly, it requires good mouse skills instead. So both players should have optical mice for such a game.

And lets the world watch live.

Hopefully this can be set-up before the last game of the Anand - Kramnik match this autumn :-)

Going beyond, they could use touch screens, so not even mouse skills would be necessary, just chess mind power.

On YouTube there are several blitzgames to be found between grandmasters, especially in the opening you can sometimes see players grabbing a piece before the opponent has pushed the clock.

What happened between Krush and Zatonskih however I have never seen (except maybe in some game at the pub).

Zatonskih did not try to play chess anymore but just tried to flag Krush. Rook from a8 to b8 to a8 to b8 etcetera, always in Krush's time. Krush slams the clock, immediately followed by Zatonskih slamming the clock. That way you can even run down somebody with a minute left.

(And calling the arbiter for a ruling is not realistic in some crazy time trouble frenzy with your last seconds ticking away, putting back a toppled piece is not possible when the opponent keeps making moves and pushing the clock.)

One has to draw the line somewhere and this was (imo) going too far. It is not really that hard to enforce the rule "only grab a piece after the opponent has pushed the clock", especially not with an arbiter standing next to the board for an important game like this.

I think it would be pretty hard to enforce. But before you can enforce such a rule, first you have to make it. There ain't no such rule, I'm afraid.

It's blitz, fer Chrissakes. You want blitz to decide national championships, you get blitz.

To paraphrase the great Eric Bristow, you can take blitz out of the pub, but you can't take the pub out of blitz.

OMG how good is Magnus Carlsen! I was watching the Ivanchuk game today up until Carlsen played c5. And everyone kibitzing was like, huh? And certainly it seemed like black was fine. Then I had to leave.

When I came back, I was astounded to see the result. Yet, playing through the game, it all looked kind of ineluctable.

I bet Carlsen could beat Zatonskih in a blitz game to win the US Championship.

And just how weak are the LA Lakers??? So true ..is he the next super player?? Will he win the world title before Irina Krush stops crying???..All this and more will be answered in the next exciting edition of "The Daily Dirt". Thanks MIG, best wishes to you and yours btw.

p.s. Josh Freidel deserves some Ninja stars for his impressive perfromances and becoming a GM as well..congrats to a NEW American GM. Also the last rounf of the American Open had a beautiful crush of D. Durevich getting served in less than 20 moves by Ben Finegolds..great game sir.

This is a comment about the general issues that arise with Armageddon games, not this particular result.

In watching the slow motion video (now available at www.chessbase.com), I am struck by how much of an advantage it is to have the clock on the side of the board that matches one's "handedness."

At this event, it is on Black's right, so the natural flow from piece to clock is very quick. White, however, must move all the way across the board each time to make the clock move, a loss of time that might account for the full difference between them.

I know that typical chess rules allow Black to determine the side of the board the clock will be on, or it is conventionally placed (when placed by tournament directors) on Black's right.

However, in an Armageddon game where Black already has draw odds, I wonder if they should either flip for clock placement or it should be on White's right.

It seems in practice that just the clock placement could give Black the win in an ending time scramble, since for Black back and forth moves are more than enough.

Or would this be a nonissue for most experienced Blitz players?

Duif

Duif may be right, but the main conclusion from such a point should be that if clock placement is a deciding factor, then it is not chess...

Q

I think the clock goes on Black's right and the players build that in as far as seems appropriate to them when quoting odds.

My guess is clock placement would indeed be an issue, even (ESPECIALLY, perhaps) for top-level blitz players.

In fact I'm surprised no one even mentioned it before, anywhere in the deluge of verbiage in this debate, whether on USCF Forums, here, or elsewhere.

It's yet one more reason to junk the whole idea of blitz games (especially Armageddon, but really, any kind of blitz) ever deciding "slow" tournaments.

As the advocates and defenders of blitz have stated with pride here many many times, the appeal of blitz is based on the fact that it introduces a large element of chance and physical excitement to a game the public sees as boring because in its traditional form it lacks those elements. Even the most VIGOROUS ADVOCATES of blitz unanimously acknowledge that both those factors are diametrically opposed to traditional, slow-time-conrol chess. In fact they publicly state that is the precise reason why they advocate blitz - as a counter to the essential features (too much thought, not enough chance, and zero role for physical agility) that are thought to make chess LESS appealing to non-chess mass audiences.

So if blitz is needed to make a public spectacle of chess, then so be it. Let's have blitz tournaments, and try to interest both the professionals to compete in them, the mass media to cover them and sponsors to fund them.

Only, let's keep blitz and real chess separate and apart from one another.

The first is public spectacle, poker-like excitement tied to the importance of blind luck, and basketball-like excitement tied to the value of physical (as opposed to purely mental) skill and lightning-fast action.

The second is the purely rational, purely skill-based and thought-based game that many of us have long known and loved.

Well, if clock placement is a major factor, as it looks to me from the video, then it would be another argument for playing the Armageddon game, if one is needed, by computer.

That could still be a very cool ending visual, especially if you had a sponsor who was either a computer/software company or an online chess club. And you'd be able to display the final game up on a screen for everyone to see.

Duif

But as rdh says, shouldn't this be built into the bidding process for the time difference? I.e., if say I thought maybe a 5:45/4:45 split made sense with a neutral clock setting, I could bump it up to 6/4:30 given that whoever takes the black pieces is going to have the clock on his/her "dominant" hand side.

As a side note, I'd think that a computer screen introduces all sorts of other issues, like mouseslips. If you're going to play blitz for this, I say play it on a board.

vsb,

I guess the first question is do the players have enough experience/information to make the right strategic bids? Most of them will have played time odds games at some point, but that's a very different kind of game.

Had Irina ever played even one Armageddon game prior to this event?

That was part of my earlier question. I know that in the past most top US players have themselves preferred blitz to chance as the means of determining a tiebreaker. It's not aout the spectators--it's about their sense of contribution to the outcome.

I just wonder if they expect an Armageddon game to feel more like time odds blitz when in fact, as Anna's strategy showed, if you get in a time scramble it's going to play out very differently.

I don't follow that. Once you get to a situation where each side has seconds left, an Armageddon game is much more like a traditional game than at any other time, because barring mate someone is going to flag, so the draw becomes irrelevant.

Playing on a computer seems insane to me. Someone mentioned mouseslips, and then there's just general computer familiarity.

Let's face it, this exact Armageddon process has been used for over ten years to resolve such matters as who goes into the next round of the FIDE world championships, which is a little more important than the US Champs title (not even the money), without much complaint. You can bet much worse things have happened to obscure Russian GMs who frankly showed a bit more class than IK and took it on the chin without writing open letters, so we never heard about it. Vyzhmanavin famously offered a draw to Kramnik in a winning position in an Intel semi-final because he forgot he was White and thought he only had to draw. That was probably the biggest game of his life both financially and in sporting terms. He didn't write letters complaining Armageddon wasn't a fair method of tie-splitting.

You're certainly right about the last few seconds. I was thinking more about say, the point where the clock reaches 1:30 minutes. At that point, White must win, Black need only draw, and it seems that Black could probably manage time more easily.

I don't doubt at all that this can be taken into account by setting the initial time odds appropriately--I just wondered if players have the experience to set it correctly.

As for the use of computers...we have a lot of experience of very good players using computers to play blitz. Many of them do so every day at the online servers, and we've seen it in competition in the Amber events. Mouseslips are rare, and it does remove any issue of clock placement favouring one player over another.

Obviously I'm somewhat prejudiced on this acount, as people like myself can only play blitz through computer means. But I was just curious if elite players had an opinion one way or the other.

--Duif

Come on guys, if it's about very important matters, like a championship title or about proceeding into the next round in a major competition, then there _should_be_time_ for a more sensible solution than just putting the competitors in a(n IMHO) humiliating position.

If prolonging the event or organizing a separate playoff is out of the question, then there should still be time for blitz games until somebody wins a game (draws should not count in this phase). Of course with a time increment (5 sec/move or sg like that) so that it's not the speed of one's hand that decides, and with about 1 or 2 minutes more initial time for Black (to compensate for White's advantage). Sooner or later (at least after a few hours), after a few or more draws, somebody will win a game.

If it's really important, then people should take the time to settle the issue in a right way. Deciding your country's championship title should be important enough to have at least a few extra hours for a more reasonable playoff. Shame on the organizers for this ridiculous 'hand-job championship'.

Duif, I agree that having blitz on computers eliminates some of the (alleged) funny business in this armageddon game (can avoid knocking over pieces, pre-moving, and moving just for the sake of being near the clock), but the added headache of manipulating a mouse and playing on a 2D board seem to be big tradeoffs.

I'd say the current generation (i.e., around Nakamura's age or younger) is much more comfortable playing blitz with a computer and so on than older generations. I personally don't mind, but I think that would be a less fair way of handling a blitz game of such importance.

Melody Amber uses a rapid time control of G/25 + 10 sec/move. Without a sizeable time increment (to make sure you have time to make your move without making obvious blunders with the mouse), I don't see computer blitz chess on quite the same level. But to add a 10 second increment to an Armageddon game completely warps the bidding process, because with time accumulation, taking the Black pieces can become less of a burden.

This year, for example, Gelfand made a simple mouseslip against Kramnik with his Queen - Kramnik decided to offer a draw instead of continuing to play after the mistake. At least over the board, the movements are the same as they are in regular chess and one would not expect the same sort of mistake.

The blindfold at Amber uses computers, but I didn't know the straight rapids did, though I stand to be corrected. But anyway that's not blitz. I play plenty of on-line blitz myself, and the idea of resolving an OTB tournament by a face to face game using computers seems absurd to me. As we all know on-line blitz has its own rules too in the last few seconds, which if anything are even less pretty.

There's a fair amount of data about the right balance of time for Armageddon games. Intel used to use six to five, I think, and it was widely thought Black had the advantage. I'd be surprised if Krush wasn't aware of that.

Playing blitz being a humiliating position - good grief. I wonder what Mikhail Tal would have thought of that.

In the fifties the British Championship was decided by a twelve-game match to split a tie. Times move on. Once you go with blitz, the exact form doesn't make that much difference. Anyone who thinks hand speed isn't still important with increments hasn't tried it.

rdh:

It's not playing blitz per se that I think is humiliating to the players. Rather, it's having to resort to hand speed alone to win a national chess championship. This does not have to do much with chess any more: at the end of the game both competitors were playing on having the other run out her last seconds. Working a lot to become a top chess player in your country and then having to do _this_ to win your country's championship - that is what I think must be humiliating. Certainly, not being anywhere near a title myself, I may be entirely wrong in my speculations.

Blitz may be OK in these times, converting a mind game into a dexterity competition is not. Increments could be introduced with the restriction that they can not be accumulated in the course of the game. That is, one could have a minimum amount of time (e.g. 3 or 5 secs) to make one's move, but one should not be able to gain time by moving quicker than that.

Yes, this would make the armageddon concept useless, but then they could play on until somebody wins a game. It may take a few hours, but if they do mean it to be a national chess championship, then they must take that time.

If I were to implement these armageddon blitz tie-break rules in real life, then the next time when after 5 minutes of an oral exam I could not decide what grade to give to a student, I would introduce a 'tie-breaker' of ordering them to make 10 push-ups in 7 seconds, or to run down the department cafeteria and bring me a coffee in 1:30 minutes.

I find myself completely agreeing with rdh.. I didnt realise that there is a generation of chess players who haven't played OTB blitz. Misi, you ARE entirely wrong in your speculations. Blitz is not a game of manual dexterity, its primarily a game of mental skill. Tell you what, practice moving the pieces fast and pressing the clock fast, so that you hone this manual skill to a fine art. Then go and play some poor old chap who is slowed down by age and doesn't have your manual skill, lets say somebody like Korchnoi? Then see how fast you lose.
In my experience, serious players have significant familiarity with Blitz. Its fun, they like Chess, they like to prove their superiority and therefore they play! Somebody had asked about the placement of the clock. Well Black always gets choice of placement. If he's right handed, he usually places the clock on his right side. If he's lefthanded, he might place it on his left. If a righthanded player plays a lefthanded player, the clock placement is ideal for both players. You have to learn to manage your time in Blitz, and if its an Armegeddon game, its even more important. Its been around so long that I find it difficult to imagine folks havent trained for it.

I knew you'd see the light eventually, d_tal.

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8486/463

Seems to me IK is now stepping beyond making a fool of herself in the heat of the moment, and moving on to some seriously bad behaviour. Silly ass.

This year, for example, Gelfand made a simple mouseslip against Kramnik with his Queen - Kramnik decided to offer a draw instead of continuing to play after the mistake.

--Posted by: vs b at June 11, 2008 12:36

I am a Kramnik basher but I was -VERY- impressed with the excellent sportsmanship that Kramnik displayed in this game, not wanting to win an important game due to a mouseslip.

I, being the cutthroat bastard that I am, would have snatched the full point. :-)

Judging by Mig's silence here for several days, I wonder if he and Mrs. Mig have had their baby?

On chessdom.com they were are calling Magnus egotistical because he did not ant a draw with Shirov..well thats because he is 17 AND BETTER than Shirov. People complain about draws than when players like Kasparov and Carlson come around and play to the death they cry as well, maybe all you should just stop crying, espececially that overrated thing called IK, create post rdh she has gone way past being a biitch.

irina just doesnt know when to quit does she. cant take a good thing and run with it. the best solution to this is clearly to eliminate the joke of a tourney that the womens championship is. let irina compete in the mens tourney where she has no chance to win, at least she'll be harder pressed to find something to whine about ad nauseum.

you'd think someone like her who gets a free $5000+ from this joke tourney every year would be able to accept a good thing (something any male chess player in the US would be thrilled to have), but instead she keeps crying "its not fair, its not fair". last time i checked she isn't in kindergarten, but maybe i should look again?

irina, you've already made yourself to be too much of a fool and sore loser, i would advise trying to cut your losses if its in any way possible by apologizing and ending this ridiculous whining.

Why can't people spell nauseam, for goodness' sake? Isn't the word 'nausea' a clue? I don't know, JPS takes all this trouble to educate the world, and then this happens...

Experience indicates there's little value-added in correcting other people's spelling errors (or typos) in blog comments - especially anonymous ones. And yeah, I know there's a conceptual distinction between typos and misspellings, but it's meaningless too as far as I can see. I eventually learned to just let both slide - even though I write and edit for a living. So, rdh, you can manage it too if you try hard enough. No one here is writing a brief that will be read by a judge.

By the way on USCF Forums some guy named McCarthy is smacking Irina over this, and claims she once benefited from some bogus TD ruling against him (which he says Goichberg later apologized for). Anyway this same jackass is also boasting about his IQ and how he won a science award that landed him a "432,000 genetics grant." He omitted any currency symbol as I recall, but my guess is he didn't mean pennies, pence or dinars. His posts are generously larded with spelling errors and typos. (NOTE: the above isn't meant to imply that Krush-bashers are dumb. It's just meant for amusement at this one jackass.)

d_tal:

I do play OTB blitz and I know very well that it's about wits, not mitts - well, most of the time, that is. But not when both players have seconds left. Yes, you can and also have to manage your time even in blitz. If I run out of time when you still have a minute, say, then I can only blame myself for bad time management. But I think I could beat a stronger player (even Korchnoi?) on time if we both had only 6 seconds, the game still far from him mating me, and I had the clock on my right hand side. Of course a stronger player would beat me well before reaching the last 6 seconds, but if we somehow reach stage in the game, it's not chess anymore.

In the US ch armageddon tiebreak both players had only a few seconds left, so in the end it was quickness that decided. Both of them failed to manage their time, if we like to put it so. It's not the fact that they were playing blitz, it's only the last 10 or 20 seconds of the game that evoked my displeasure. What's wrong with giving each player 3, or let it be even as few as 2 extra seconds per move (non-accumulative), at least in blitz games deciding a slow-play championship?

reach stage = reach THAT stage, sorry

Misi, here's something that may surprise you, but before the last six seconds are reached, each player has several minutes for the game. You might beat Korchnoi if you each started with 6 seconds, but I have never heard of Chess games that have a total time of 6 seconds. The point is, you do something in your game BEFORE you reach that point. If you can't, well, your superiority in blitz is not proven and it does become a lottery. I guess the alternative is to toss a coin.

And obviously, your argument holds for all classical time controls, i.e. without increment. Even if the game starts with lets say 6 hours each, if the players haven't finished their game by ( + - ) then each player will have six seconds left. Kind of ridiculous to argue that the game is invalid because the players only had 6 seconds left at the end.

ok, my "formula" above did not post, probably because of angle brackets.. Let me try again:

"..if the players haven't finished their game by (startTime + 6hrs - 6secs) then.."

obviously it has to be 3 hrs each or (startTime + 12hrs - 6 secs).

d_tal:

You wrote it yourself: if both players use up/mismanage their time without defeating the other, then it becomes a lottery. It may be OK in a blitz competition, but a slow-time championship should be decided in a different way. That's what I'm complaining about.

You are obviously right that it can also happen in games with classical time controls. Yet still I don't see anything wrong with a minimal added time per move that can not be accumulated, and that is just barely enough to physically make the move and press the clock - e.g. 2 or 3 seconds. Now that you mentioned classical games, maybe these seconds could be added there, too, after move 60, when both players have a finite amount of time to finish the game.

Practically it can be done by today's electronic clocks, e.g. in a way that the clock starts only after 2 seconds it was pressed. As far as I remember it was tried out in a rapid or blitz match a few years ago (maybe Kramnik-Kasparov, I remember reading about this at the former kasparovchess.com website).

The point is to keep chess a mind game, especially when it's about a title, and to prevent scenarios like the one happened in the US ch armageddon game.

And one more thing: this is not about changing the outcome of this US women's championship. It went according to the rules, the players knew (or were supposed to know) the rules, and they also knew (or could have very well known) that it could come down to this. Rather, it's about next time when a slow-play competition is to be decided by blitz.

Misi, for goodness' sake, there's nothing wrong with blitz. Fischer played it. Petrosian Tal played it. Capablanca played it. Being able to look after yourself in a blitz game has been a traditional test of a player for as long as there have been chess clocks. It's a part of chess' rich heritage. It's only a tie-breaker, and one which has been used for much more important things than this for a long time.

And just in case anyone's still following this, here's Anna Z:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8500/463

Yes and the world's best players are also some of the world's best blitz players, funnily enough. Fischer, Tal, Petrosian, Kasparov, Karpov were/are all supreme blitz players.

"You wrote it yourself: if both players use up/mismanage their time without defeating the other, then it becomes a lottery. It may be OK in a blitz competition, but a slow-time championship should be decided in a different way. That's what I'm complaining about."

Misi, I see the point that you are trying to make, and in principle I agree that either you should have adjournments, or increments if a high quality is to be maintained. But I'm not sure this is valid in the present circumstances. The whole point of the Armageddon game is that it has to produce a winner. Increments will disturb the delicate balance of draw odds and clock placement though with a shorter time and Black vs a longer time and white but with no draw odds.

rdh:

Blitz is OK.

Blitz is fun.

Fisher et al played it.

I play it, too. :-)

Blitz is a test of your chess skills.

Blitz is a test of time management.

In fact, Blitz has been there well before everyone had access to a chess clock. Lilenthal recalls it in his memoires: an umpire counted until ten, and then the player had to move.

And we could add a lot more positive comments on blitz - I would agree.

However, deciding a championship the way it was at the recent US ch is IMHO _not_ OK. Well, Tal may have liked it... :-) But I seriously doubt that about the others you mentioned.

Long live blitz chess, but in slow-play competitions let the players have that extra few seconds to avoid scenarios like this one.

I don't think we'll ever agree on that, but fortunately we don't have to.

d_tal:

You are of course absolutely right that an armageddon game does not make sense with any increments. I wrote that myself in one of my previous posts. Thus, the alternative to the armageddon game is to keep playing blitz games (with increments) until somebody wins.

Misi, I think as with anything its governed by free market principles.. If the sponsors have enough money, and they perceive a sufficiently rewarding return, they will make the match longer. I think if a match was over a decent length, there will be a winner proven by superiority over a longer TC with no need to resort to blitz, an altogether more satisfactory conclusion. In this particular case I think the the stakes were rather unimportant, and nobody cares enough (i.e. the money doesnt exist) to make the tie break better. With all due respect to their ability (far more than mine I'm sure), these two ladies hardly set the world alight with their chess. I personally am supremely unconcerned, I only started posting when I saw some debates about blitz!

I, too, see your point. An armageddon game is a completely valid concept in itself: white should win in the time given, black should at least hold the draw. If neither of them achieves his aim until the last seconds, then it becomes something of a lottery of quickness and clock handling. Which may be acceptable, since neither of the two players proved superior in the game.

Don't get me wrong, this would be a wonderful way to decide a blitz championship (even a blitz world championship). My only reservations about blitz are related to the way it is used to determine a winner in a classical time control event.

d_tal:

About the two ladies and the importance of the event: well, depends on your point of view. Even if we don't care about a US women's ch, it might have been the event of the decade for the two of them...

Actually, I don't care either, for me it's just a question of principle/theory/whatever. However, USCF should have cared. It's their championship. I don't believe they lacked the money to have just one play-off day for more blitzing. And one day we may also see a Kramnik-Topalov match decided that way, and then we, too, may care after all.

Unfortunately the brutal reality of the world is, the interests of the protagonists are very much subservient to the perceived view of the larger world. For example, something might be of the utmost importance to me, but unless I can also make it appear important to other people, I wont be paid much for it! And I suspect we will never see a Kramnik-Topalov match decided in that way precisely because the Chess standard is much higher, and people (other than the contestentats themselves) care enough about the match to put in place more satisfactory arrangements.

The number one protagonist here is the U.S. Chess Federation, not the two players. It's up to the USCF if they consider their women's championship important enough to reserve a separate playoff day. Looks like they don't.

d_tal wrote: "....And I suspect we will never see a Kramnik-Topalov match decided in that way precisely because the Chess standard is much higher, and people (other than the contestentats themselves) care enough about the match to put in place more satisfactory arrangements."

This is plain wrong, and very naive. Wasn't the use of Armageddon tiebreak written into the contracts for at least one recent WCC? (Maybe even for the last Kramnik-Topalov match; though I don't recall for sure.) I definitely remember at least one, probably more than one, WCC match or tourney included Armageddon game as tiebreaker, at the end of a series of progressively shorter time-control games if the main event ended in a tie.

Moreover, we all know how elite chess works these days. I don't think anyone, not even Kirsan-lickers, will dispute the following thumbnail sketch:

1. Kirsan writes all the checks. So, just like the Berrys in America (and Erik Anderson before them), Kirsan decrees what the rules are going to be. Anyone else - players, arbiters, national federation presidents, whatever - can take it or leave it.

2. Kirsan prefers that high-level chess - especially the WCC - incorporate a high degree of randomness. He calls this "democracy," meaning that everyone (even relatively weak players) should have a chance to reach the top.

Again, no Kirsan-licker or anyone else will dispute point #2, since on this my memory is very clear: I read him saying close to those exact words in several published interviews. It's the guiding concept behind his WCC lottery system (aka KO tourneys).

Well, I suppose you could dispute the point, IF you were willing to argue that all the interviews were fabricated by some interplantary conspiracy that's seeking to make Kirsan look bad. (This being the Dirt, I have to allow the possibility that some people here see things that way.)

So it seems that a WCC decided by Armageddon really is in the cards, probably sooner rather than later.

well you seem to have a whole agenda to pursue, good luck with that! Re Armageddon, it hasn't happened yet in a WC, because the hierarchical series of longer TC games were sufficient. So long as this hierarchy is sufficiently deep, can't complain of blitz armageddon. At some point there has to be a tie-breaker.

FYI, the U.S. Women's playoff had pretty much the same hierarchy of progressively shrinking time control tie-breakers as the WCC had (/have?), I think. We all know that before the Armageddon stage was reached, Krush and Zatonskih played a pair of G-30 tie-break games (ending 1-1) then a pair of conventional blitz games (ending 1-1). Isn't that the same as what's provided for the WCC?

I guess "it hasn't happened yet" is enough for d_tal. Logic isn't his strong suit.

No fly, and you sure aint fly, but that's by the by. The WC has regular time control games between the players BEFORE the tie break. That constitutes the essential part of the hierarchy. If after a match of decent length, the players are still tied and have to go to an Armageddon, they havent been able to prove their superiority, and a coin toss is as good as anything I guess. The US championship was a tournament, and didnt have a match between the players. They started off with 2 15 minute rapid games and 2 blitz games straight away. A tie break system in keeping with the relatively unimportant nature of the whole thing. Savvy? Or wasn't reading and comprehension your strong point in school? Logic certainly wasn't.

Actually, even otherwise you're wrong on overy count. The Topalov-Kramnik match had 4 rapid games at 25min +10sec/move. Compare that with 2 games 15min +3sec/move. How is that the same? I guess flyonthewall subscribes to the tenet of "if I shout loudly enough I can change facts". Logic sure isnt his string suit.

No, there is no need at all to have an armageddon blitz playoff if the organizer deems a classical TC event important enough. d_tal, you may write anything about an event's importance, but a chess federation of a country should consider their women's national championship imprtant, no matter what people commenting at chessninja.com write.

Sorry for repeating my past arguments, but still nobody wrote why a separate playoff day is not feasible for such an event (I doubt that USCF are in that bad a financial situation). One day would be enough to play rapid/blitz games in succession until somebody wins, or play one single, slow time control armageddon game. _If_ people at USCF think that it's an important event, that is.

The same holds for the world championship. If FIDE deems it important, they should have a decent tiebreaker system. In case of a draw, the 'champion retains title' is still much better than an armageddon blitz playoff. And again, this is not blitz-bashing, it's just that blitz should have its limits, too.

Kramnik-Topalov was a special case because both were considered champions. And yes, in the regulations there was a possibility of them playing a final blitz game (6 mins for white, 5 for black, white has to win). We were lucky that it did not happen. FIDE were lucky, too.

d_tal, it's not often one finds someone man enough to admit their errors as you just did - even castigate themselves with comments such as "if I shout loudly enough I can change facts" (an apt reference to your multiple posts, suggesting a deep emotional investment and/or lack of confidence in your view).

Not to mention your self-descriptive remark, "Or wasn't reading comprehension your strong point in school" - an especially apt critique of your repeatedly citing the Kramnik-Topalov WCC match as a counter to my longer initial post (which mentioned the K-T match in passing but explicitly referred primarily to the series of WCC "lottery" TOURNAMENTS as the place where Armageddon tie-breaks play, or are likely to play, a decisive role).

fly, well done, you win.