Pirate Killing Monday

Sadvakasov is working on his Masters degree at CMU, I believe, which is why he plays mostly in American tournaments these days.

Is there any chance to read that interview in English or Spanish?

Naka dropped out. Shameful!

Manu,

Chessdom has some significant excerpts of the topalov interview in english translation. You can find it there:

http://interviews.chessdom.com/veselin-topalov-gazeta

Strong players dropping out of big opens before the final round when they have no chance of a prize is very common. Many others did that at Foxwoods. E.g. Akobian and Ivanov both dropped out after losing in the 8th round. I noted Nakamura's exit because 1) he's always newsworthy and was the top seed and 2) he did it with two rounds to go and still could have tied for 3rd had he won his final two games. I'm guessing he was ticked off at not winning his 121-move pawn-up game over Friedel in the 7th round, but only he can say, of course.

"We should not forget that we have replaced the champions like Robert Fischer, Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov, all of whom proved their superiority, which did not mean being merely first among equals, but ahead of everyone else, so the fans are expecting a similar feat from us, but with the current competition of such a high standard it is very, very difficult."

Google's translator doesn't do too badly with the interview (it's always entertaining, anyway!): http://tinyurl.com/dzznbz

цейтнот is zeitnot i.e. time trouble.

Another quote from the Google translation:
" But long before the start of the match Kamsky had formed a military headquarters, he helped three strong Grandmaster."
'helped' obviously should be 'was helped by' - but what is 'military headquarters' in the original Russian version ?!

Whenever Nakamura loses or draws on ICC, he disconnects. So I'm not surprised.

Dropping out on the last round or the last two rounds shouldn't be tolerated.
I wish Nakamura and Akobian would play the entire event no matter what. It is certainly not a professional behavior.

Would people be ok with a tennis player giving up after being led 6-3 6-2 2-0 ? I don't think so.

From the forum 2+2, it seems like Nakamura was trying is luck at the poker tables ( NL 2/5) in Foxwoods and was doing pretty well apparently. there's no doubt poker is far more lucrative than chess and Nakamura has probably better earning prospects there if he spends half the time he devoted to chess.

Easy way to get GMs *not* to drop out is to require that in order to get their free entry into the tournament, they must play every round.

Imagine how great Carlsen could be if he just started acting like a j*goff.

I really think that not playing the entire tournament is showing disrespect to both players and organizers altogether. It's like saying implicitly, " I have lost chances to make money, so it's not worth continuing playing ".

This behavior cannot project a good image for chess. Why would other players bother to follow the rules then ? If they happened to have a bad tournament, why not shorten it as well ? I am a believer of following by example, and if GMs shorten their tournament as it is convenient to them, then everybody can emulate that.

Once again do you see Roddick walking out of the third set against Nadel, or a soccer team exiting the field because they are 0-3 in the game ?

chessplanet, your last statement sounds much more like an argument for banning resignation (in an individual game) than for banning withdrawing from a tournament.

Jon,

That's the common problem when posters compare other sports with chess. chessplanet made the same mistake in two posts. Analogies are used in which the unit of analysis isn't the same. It happens so often.

I'm not sure why this is an issue. Hikaru didn't get an appearance fee, did he? The other issue is the idea of opportunity cost. He probably measured his potential earnings between playing chess vs. poker. Maybe he could still win $166.67 playing two more rounds. He probably felt playing poker or engaging in some other activity would give him more utility for his time.

You can't justify dropping out of a tournament just because you paid an entry fee, or because you are not getting conditions. It is still unsporting and rude, and disruptive for the balance of the event and affects the sporting outcome for others.

You enter the tournament, contribute to the costs of the tournament, AND accept an obligation to see it through.

I don't understand this debate. Hikaru is not the first GM to withdraw from a tournament (in the U.S. or Europe) and we are discussing this like the "no draw" issue. People withdraw for so many reasons... there are no contracts signed at U.S. tournaments unless you are getting conditions and are under some obligation.

Players withdraw all the time in individual sports for a multitude of reasons. Certainly it would be good in Nakamura played all nine rounds... especially if sponsors were involved, but until U.S. chess starts treating chess players like professionals, it will be hard to expect them not to consider their financial considerations.

ggg,

"It is still unsporting and rude, and disruptive for the balance of the event and affects the sporting outcome for others"

that's it. it shouldn't happen unless there's a good reason to miss a round.

Daaim Shabazz,
"certainly it would be good if Nakamura played all nine rounds".

Once again, I agree with that. And true for all GMs and professional. In order to have better prize money, they need to enhance the game status and not the reverse. Too many sponsors have dropped out of chess because of the unprofessional behavior of many players, including strong ones.

This discussion of what defines "professional" behavior reminds me of something I heard nearly 40 years ago, right out of college, when toying with a career as a writer:

At any gathering of writers, it's easy to tell the professionals (actually I think the aphorism referred to "published" writers) from the amateurs ("unpublished").

The unpublished ones blather about art and truth and such. Whereas the published writers' conversations always revolve around contracts and rates of pay.

There's a lesson there for this discussion. And in case anyone thinks I'm favoring the amateurs' attitude, let me be clear: Being concerned mainly with maximizing his earnings (or "utility", to use Daaim's economics-textbook phrase) consistent with the rules, is precisely what makes Nakamura and most other GMs "professionals."

As someone enlighteningly pointed out elsewhere (not even on Dirt, I think), the word "amateur" is derived from the Latinate word for love, amor or amore. It means one who participates for love of the game or sport.

I can see how we'd like our professionals to also be "amateurs" in this precise sense. We'd like our heroes to love the game so much that thay'll play even when they have no chance to be paid...if not for the sheer joy of sitting at the board and cogitating for hours on end, then in order to keep bringing joy to their fans, spectators and weaker players who are following or even participating alongside them. (Yeah I know: I should sell these passages to South Park -if that's what I'm starting to sound like, it's no accident.)

I can also envision that ggg and chessplanet will lack the capacity to follow the logic that being an amateur in the sense outlined above - playing for reasons unrelated to money - is wholly incompatible with being a professional, whether in chess or any other pursuit. Meanwhile, the rest of Dirt's readership will find my logic entirely natural and persuasive.

So those two individuals, it seems, live in the upside-down or Bizarro-world, if you will. When chessplanet states for instance that sponsors have dropped out of chess over "unprofessional behavior of many players," (i.e. withdrawing from tournaments), he is actually referring to PROFESSIONAL behavior under the label, "unprofessional behavior."

Summing up: Professionals work for pay. Amateurs (non-professionals) don't.

Chessplanet: Ever heard of a thing called a "dictionary"?

ggg,

You're right about changing the balance of events, but you took my statement out of context by not including it in its entirety. I actually said,

"Certainly it would be good in Nakamura played all nine rounds... especially if sponsors were involved, but until U.S. chess starts treating chess players like professionals, it will be hard to expect them not to consider their financial considerations."

You stated,

"that's it. it shouldn't happen unless there's a good reason to miss a round."

Hikaru had a good reason and based on this reasoning, he withdrew. Why are we determining what is a good reason for a person to withdraw? It is debatable whether withdrawing from a tournament should be considered unprofessional, but not debatable that professional chess players should be able to make a living doing what they do best.

There needs to be better marketing of chess. An appearance fee for one the world's top players (over 2700) and he probably doesn't withdraw. who knows? Players over 2700 get conditions in most other places. If he got conditions, signed a contract and withdrew, THAT would be unprofessional.

I've seen one or another event at the Marshall Chess Club - either the club championship or the new NY International launched last June (with a second installment slated this June) - that have a twist on the usual free-entry for GMs, that's designed to discourage dropping out.

The twist is this: Although allowed free entry, they are nevertheless required to pay the full entry fee up front. It is refunded to them upon completion of the tournament (but is deducted from any prize money they win - that's a usual condition when giving free entry to titled players, in any case).

I had thought Goichberg did something similar in his tournaments, but apparently I was mistaken.

How about we turn the question around? Since any organizer could choose to announce in advance that penalties would be imposed on a titled player (or even perhaps any player) who withdrew at any time without medical or some other allowed reason...yet organizers apparently choose not to do that...Let's ask, what would be in it for the organizer?

In other words, what is to motivate an organizer to impose such a rule (which of course would need to be announced in the pre-tournament publicity)?

If there were lots of people like chessplanet (G-d forbid!) and ggg, who'd be more likely to play in or otherwise support tournaments that had such a rule, then organizers probably would be announcing the rule.

Since they don't, it follows that organizers of Open tournaments aren't hearing any significant demand from their customers (paying players) to penalize withdrawals. (Of course, it hardly needs reminding that all tournaments, even itty-bitty ones at local clubs, DO penalize players who withdraw or miss a round without informing a TD before they've been paired for the next round.)

¨In other words, what is to motivate an organizer to impose such a rule (which of course would need to be announced in the pre-tournament publicity)?¨
That is not correct ,contract rules needs to be signed and published , not ¨announced¨ .
Like ggg said there are consecuences for such disruptive behaviour , someone is actually paying the price of sending the wrong message to the public and sponsors.

Precision in thinking and precision in language go hand-in-hand, Manu.

Remember that we're talking about open tournaments here. In other words, tournaments that don't have any external "sponsors" (strictly speaking, a U.S.-style open tournament's sponsors are the organizer plus all the players)... and for which the "public" is for all practical purposes synonymous with the field of entrants. The whole discussion on this thread began with Nakamura withdrawing from Foxwoods - an OPEN tournament.

I think others here pointed out that players who receive what's euphemistically called "conditions" (expenses paid and/or appearance fees) are sometimes compelled to sign contracts containing counter-conditions, such as the obligation to play every round. And as I noted, some tournaments (not Opens, though) even require GMs to play all rounds in return for free entry (enforced by making the GM pay the entry fee up front and getting it back only after finishing the tournament).

Such conditions apparently do not exist for Foxwoods or other open tournaments.

So, there might be no debate here after all...some people's tone to the contrary, it's starting to look like we all agree that if a player is guaranteed any payment for entering (including "conditions"), the person paying him has a right (and perhaps an obligation) to bind him by contract to complete the tournament.

Conversely, when a player is not guaranteed anything for showing up, he doesn't owe anything in return...

And he certainly owes nothing to anonymous internet idiots who don't contribute so much as a dime from their own pockets while rhetorically flailing to stick their hand in his...

Are we in agreement?

How wonderful, Jon, that you can delude yourself that everybody here, other than two holdouts, will completely agree with you.

Players who 'professionally' drop out without completing events, and act in other unsporting ways, will damage their reputation and may lose money, longterm, in consequence.

Behaving professionally is not just about the next $100. Sometimes a job doesn't go as planned and you lose money in completing it. Sometimes you do something for a reduced price or for free. There are not incompatible with professionalism.

>

I think that one thing is clear: with a non-withdraw rule for tournaments nobody would be debating about professionalism. Maybe about the rule, but that's another point :) What could help with this state of things? Maybe a good ACP (or whatever). With a good association of players, this kind of conditions should be reglemented in advance, as for example, it is in tennis. Also it could help with the FIDE/Grand Prix mess. An association would certainly have more leverage than Carlsen and Adams. It's not to say it's entirely the players' fault, but they fail consistently to organize themselves.

There seems to be one consensus: dropping out before the final round is not uncommon, it is just a bit more newsworthy for the top seed than for, say, #5 player (and goes altogether unnoticed for amateur player #100).
There may be semi-consensus that such behavior is not appreciated, and it is controversially discussed if it is (still) 'acceptable'. Again there is semi-consensus that it would not be acceptable (and could be punished) in the case of 'conditions' combined with contractual obligations - not applicable in the Foxwood case.
In any case, Nakamura would have to do something much worse to significantly damage his reputation: losing 100-200 rating points, demonstrably cheating, cheating allegations against his opponents, appearing at the board completely drunk or stoned, physically attacking his opponent, ... [of course I don't imply that he is capable of any of this].

And my own little anecdote: At another occasion (name, time and place are irrelevant), a top seed GM [playing on conditions, as far as I know] did not drop out before the final round, but conceded a short draw against a much lower-rated opponent and wanted to leave immediately (i.e. before the closing ceremony). Like all other foreign participants, he ended up stuck at the venue/town due to weather-related public transport problems. Many people had to laugh at this - he had several time-trouble incidents in games against fellow GM's and thus wasn't popular anyway ... .

to jon jacobs,

Who do you think you are to claim that most chessplayers will agree with your viewpoint ?

The only thing which is clear from your posts is that you have a very high opinion of yourself and of your writings. How pathetic ( and look it up in the dictionary ).

To assume that other posters will not get your point is just plain arrogance. Just grow up !

But you're still mistaken : chess professionals at the highest level do love the game, in the amateur sense. If maximizing earnings is all there is, why would anyone pick chess ? It doesn't make any sense. But how would you know anyway ?

I rest my case. It's clear that all readers here agree with me, since only the three clowns (ggg, Manu and chessplanet) continue to post in opposition. (N.B. Alez doesn't count because his post exclusively concerns professional, i.e. closed events, which is not what most of us here have been debating.)

Most telling of all, whereas I post facts, arguments and reasoning, the three clowns' posts consist exclusively of insults plus their wholly unsupported assertion of their own feelings (primarily, that there is something dishonorable about withdrawing from a tournament if it isn't going well).

One example: ggg wrote:
"Sometimes a job doesn't go as planned and you lose money in completing it. Sometimes you do something for a reduced price or for free. There are not incompatible with professionalism."

By what conceivable definition is playing in an open tournament, without "conditions," considered a "job"?

When one works at a "job" - whether contract or permanent - there must be an employer, must there not? Who, then, is a chess player's employer in an Open tournament?

And by what logic, if any, would you distinguish between the obligations of an open tournament's top seed and what my obligations would be if I were to compete in the same event (and presuming the top seed received no "conditions")? As far as I can tell, in an open event the top seed and I should be treated identically by the organizer and the TD. Presumably none of the three clowns proposes penalizing me if I were to enter and withdraw....

"I rest my case. It's clear that all readers here agree with me, since only the three clowns (ggg, Manu and chessplanet) continue to post in opposition."
That is a wholly invalid conclusion.

Jon,

I think ggg makes a valid point (which you either choose to disregard or do not understand) when he says that behaving professionally is not just about the next paycheck. Lawyers, for instance, sometimes do pro bono work (therefore not a "job" by your definition) and stick with the case until it's resolution even if it takes an unfavorable turn, because withdrawing would reflect poorly on their professionalism and could loose them (paying) clients in the future. By the same token, an up-and-coming GM might do well to behave professionally even in open events where he/she is under no contractual obligation to do so.

Nakamura seems to feel he's not getting his fair share of invitations to big events. I suppose there are many reasons for that, but unprofessional or unsportsmanlike behavior could certainly be one of them (inconsistent performances perhaps being another).

Now, if a lowly amateur chooses to withdraw from a tournament, that's an entirely different thing. He/she has no stake in building or preserving a good reputation in the chess world and can do what best suits his/her immediate needs. But even amateurs sometimes feel a moral obligation to finish a tournament that they have committed to, despite poor results. That is nothing to ridicule or belittle.

Please take note that I haven't attacked or insulted you in any way, so I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling me a clown.

As Daaim pointed out early in this thread, some of the analogies being presented are so wildly off-base that one wonders whether those posting them are familiar with chess culture at all.

That applies for instance to Girly Sue's analogy between a lawyer taking on a case pro bono, and a chess player competing in a tournament.

Are there any practicing attorneys here who'd like to comment on the appropriateness of that alleged analogy?

First I'll show how surface details refute the alleged analogy. Then I'll prove how that comparison is faulty on a deeper, more fundamental level.

Similar to an earlier poster who equated withdrawing from a tournament with a football team walking off the field when the score is against them: To a person who IS familiar with tournament chess culture, the pro bono lawyer-GM analogy sounds much morel like an argument against letting a player resign a GAME, then against letting a player withdraw from a tournament.

Possibly a more reasonable analogy might be: is the pro bono attorney who loses the case at trial, morally obligated to handle the subsequent appeal process? Each round in a chess tournament is a discrete encounter, after all.

But even then, the attorney analogy prejudges the conclusion, because any legal case embeds a vital element whose presence or absence in the chess situation is at the center of what's being debated: fiduciary responsibility. The lawyer, pro bono or not, has a CLIENT whom he or she is morally obligated to. The client has obtained a promise from the lawyer to serve the client's interests (stated in formal codes of conduct that are part of the legal licensing process)..and those interests could be hung out to dry if the lawyer withdrew.

Nothing remotely similar exists in the chess context.

So, positing an analogy between a lawyer-client relationship of any sort, and a GM-fan relationship, is quite obviously misleading at its core.

It is a pity that Hikaru withdrawn, but it is only his business and nothing more, Goichberg and CCA byself are main sink of amateur moneys, but they even do not care if this year Foxwoods had only 8 foreign titled players, two short from FIDE requirements and it costs GM norm for Lenderman. Even in NY there are a bunch of foreign titled players, which could be personally invited (just like example Philipinian IMs Naranja and Barbosa). First of all Foxwoods and other tournaments of this type (mostly all American tournaments), it is a tournament where organizers win a first place, than it is a lottery for a GM and others lucky class players or some earning for sandbaggers, and only after that it is something like chess, probably the best chess at the USA

Thomas, the analogy you proposed between freelance writing and entering a chess tournament without conditions is interesting. Yes, I suppose GMs competing without conditions are somewhat like freelance authors. Whether they ultimately get paid for their efforts is subject to forces beyond their control. And conversely, they are under no contractual obligation to complete the work unless they've been paid in advance.

One difference, though: While a writer who doesn't deliver is likely to be boycotted in future by that publisher and other publishers, a tournament organizer who doesn't give conditions would never think of barring or otherwise penalizing a player who withdrew from one or more of his tournaments (assuming of course the player notified the TD before being paired for the next round).

By the way, that is a big reason I always avoided taking on freelance work: It's more like a hobby than a professional activity. Can anyone think of any other alleged business in which an employer would dare dream up a concept like "kill fee"? (For the uninitiated: that's what a publisher pays an author who fulfilled all obligations, has delivered a manuscript on time and whose quality the publisher is happy with - yet if the publisher ends up not publishing it for any reason or no reason, the author is paid not the agreed-upon fee, but something on the order of 15% - 25% ...think of it as a consolation prize. That is what's called a "kill fee.")

One other thing: When you (Thomas) brought in Aeroflot, you seem to be implying that top players in that open are required to complete the schedule. Is that true?

Let's take a soccer championship.

after 30 matches, Manchester United is leading, Chelsea is second.
Tottenham is ranked 10th. does Tottenham drop out because 1) they can't mathematically win the U.K Championship 2) they can't finish last.

Tottenham will play the entire season , period.

Now if you want to talk about the NFL, that's fine with me to. Do teams who can't make the playoffs drop out before the end of the season ? I don't think so.

Now an obnoxious poster like you know who, who deludes himself thinking he is the only one here thinking logically (his favorite word), will probably think or post something along those lines:

Chess is an individual sport. NFL, Soccer are team sports. So your analogy doesn't hold. yada-yada-yada.

Acta est fabula

Brilliant Chessplanet, thank you for enlightening me. How could I have been so poorly informed - dumb American that I am - as to be unaware that UK football teams and their players are paid only if they finish the season near the top of their league.

This silly American even had the crazy idea that pro football players in the UK have contracts. Dumb old me...

And I was even ignorant of the economic arrangements of American football, the NFL, in my very own country! I thought that NFL football players, too, had contracts that set forth both their obligations and their compensation.

Well, I sure have much to learn.

Indeed, we would all do well to study the command of facts and logic that Chessplanet has displayed in his above comment (which, I might add, match the command of facts and logic he displayed in his earlier posts here as well).

We can all benefit from studying Chessplanet's use of logic, for much the same reason we can benefit from studying the play of the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard against Morphy. Or Reshevky's opening play in his game against Fischer from the U.S. Championship in 1958....

You've shown you have much to teach us, Chessplanet.

Jon,

Despite your irreproachable, if somewhat tedious, ratiocinations, you keep missing my and ggg's point. I'll try one last analogy, although I am not hopeful I'll be able to convince you.

You take pride in your opinions and your writing. Nothing wrong with that. And when you post something on a blog, as you did in this thread, you do your best to do justice to your ideas and showcase your writing skills, even though you are not getting paid for it. And no matter how many other posters contradict you, you come back with a rebuttle. It doesn't matter that you can't "win" (people who have expressed dissenting views here seem to outnumber you and are unlikely to be swayed), you still do it again, and again, and again. Not because there is a direct financial incentive (and yet I thought you were a professional writer), but out of some sense of responsability, either to the "truth" (as you perceive it), to the people who perhaps silently agree with you, or merely to your self-image as a writer and debater.

All I'm saying is that it's nice to see GMs demonstrate the same degree of commitment and pride in their craft, especially when there is no direct monetary gain to be had in doing so. I even believe that such commitment is rewarded in the long run, as those players are likely to make a good name for themselves and build a broader fan base, leading to bigger and better opportunities. That's a different take from yours on what professionalism ultimately is, but not one that should be discarded outright.

I'm sure you can find plenty in my post to nitpick at, if you feel so inclined. And in the event that you do, I'll gladly let you have the last word, because I've argued my point as best I know how, and my ego is not overly invested in this little debate. Whether yours is remains to be seen. The tenor of your reply (should there be one) will be very telling in this respect.

Jon, try to focus for a moment.

Girly Sue was using a lawyer taking pro bono work as an example of a professional doing work (sometimes known as a 'job') without pay.

..That applies for instance to Girly Sue's analogy between a lawyer taking on a case pro bono, and a chess player competing in a tournament..

It is clear that there are more clowns than you anticipated, and no rush of people coming to your support.

..It's clear that all readers here agree with me, since only the three clowns (ggg, Manu and chessplanet) continue to post in opposition..

And, as pointed out above, Jon, you really failed in logic with the 'if opposes Jon then not equals reader' line.

Well, I'd meant to avoid wrestling with a pig, but fell down on the job.

What I mean is: after watching closely the tit-for-tat on the other thread between Manu and Thomas re cheating via consultation with stronger player, I studiously avoided entering that debate...uppermost in my mind was the old injunction: "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get covered in mud, and only the pig will like it."

Yet, AFTER seeing all that, I went and started posting here. What could I have been thinking?

(The pig in that other case being Manu. In fact, if there were anyone left reading this thread who isn't a sock-puppet of the three clowns, they must be getting quite a chuckle out of Manu the troll's depiction of himself a few posts up: "Your sarcasm and insults are the first choice of people with self steem issues.
Do you feel unappreciated in any way? or not taken so seriously as you want?" Manu could not be describing himself more accurately, based on the argumentative style he displayed in his debate with Thomas from that other thread.)

Ah yes, the immortal greats of logic:

"It's clear that all readers here agree with me, since only the three clowns (ggg, Manu and chessplanet) continue to post in opposition"
[J. Jacobs]

"I'm simply pointing out that there are three results in chess: win, draw, loss. Your mathematical chance of white winning a given chess game is simply 1/3... you can win with white, you can draw with white, you can lose with white. "
[D. Shabazz]

"...Goichberg and CCA byself are main sink of amateur moneys, but they even do not care if this year Foxwoods had only 8 foreign titled players, two short from FIDE requirements and it costs GM norm for Lenderman. Even in NY there are a bunch of foreign titled players, which could be personally invited (just like example Philipinian IMs Naranja and Barbosa)."

You couldn't be further from the truth about Goichberg "caring" about the number of foreigners in this event. A free entry was given to every foreign GM/IM/WGM/WIM in an attempt to meet the FIDE waiver requirements for foreigners. In the end there were over 20 foreigners but as you stated only 8 "titled" foreigners (titles being GM/IM/WGM/WIM - FM does not count). This is only the 2nd year since this has been a 9 round event offering norms that it has not met the FIDE waiver requirement and even then Hess and Enkhbat still scored norms while Shankland was one last round win away from doing the same. Lenderman was just truly unlucky with the pairings but to say that people didn't "care" about what was happening is totally wrong.