Kreiman - US Chess Championship Controversy

A new controversy has arisen involving Grandmaster Boris Kreiman and
the qualification rules for the US Championship.

In the American Open in Los Angeles in November, Kreiman won his last
round game against International Master Ricardo De Guzman, thereby
qualifying Kreiman for the US Championship starting on February 22.

However, the game looks suspicious. De Guzman played the opening
exceptionally passively. He gave up a pawn for no apparent reason and
then he resigned a pawn down when there was still play left in the
game.

This unusual circumstance plus the rather sordid reputation of
Grandmaster Kreiman, including the fact that he is believed to
participate in illegal activities and is known to take anabolic
steroids, which is a violation of FIDE Rules, had led some to believe
that Kreiman paid De Guzman to dump the game.

The original complaint about this game was made by International
Master Jesse Kraai, the next person down in the standings, who would
have qualified to the US Championship had the game ended in a draw or
a win by De Guzman.

http://www.americanopen.org/2005/standings.html

International Arbiter Randy Hough, who was an arbiter at the
tournament, has written a letter to the American Foundation for Chess,
which organizes the US Championship, indicating that he believes that
the game was fixed.

This controversy has been reported on the chessninja.com website, and
an active discussion is taking place on the forum there.

http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/...art_attack.htm

Greg Shahade, a member of the USCF Executive Board until he resigned
two weeks ago, has raised this issue with the USCF, suggesting that
Kreiman be disqualified from the US Championship.

However, there is another side to this story, which makes this case
not so clear. Turns out that International Master De Guzman plays this
way. Players in the San Francisco Bay Area where De Guzman lives say
that this is just a typical De Guzman game. De Guzman wins by playing
passively and suckering his opponents into over-aggressive play. They
say that De Guzman indeed does play like a 1400-player some of the
time. In short, this is nothing more than a typical De Guzman game,
they say.

In addition, Kreiman does not have a lot of money. Unless he had just
scored a big win at poker or backgammon, he would not have had enough
money to pay off De Guzman. International Masters do not sell their
games so cheaply. They sell, but not so cheaply.

Finally, Grandmaster Kreiman is rated one hundred points higher than
De Guzman. Why would Kreiman pay an opponent that he would probably
beat anyway without having to pay him anything at all?

Here is the game. What do you think?

Sam Sloan


[Event "41st American Open"]
[Site "Los Angeles"]
[Date "2005.11.27"]
[Round "08"]
[White "De Guzman, Ricardo"]
[Black "Kreiman, Boris"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.Nbd2 c6 7.c3 Na6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Re1 Qc8 10.Qe2 Re8 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.Rec1 Qf5
14.h3 Bxh3 15.Bxh3 Qxh3 16.Qf1 Qf5 17.Kg2 Bf6 18.Qh1 h5 19.Be1 c5
20.Qh3 Qxh3+ 21.Kxh3 c4 22.Nbd2 Nd6 23.b3 b5 24.Kg2 Nc7 25.bxc4
bxc4 26.Kf1 e6 27.Rab1 Rab8 28.Ng1 g5 29.f3 g4 30.f4 Be7 31.Ne2
Kg7 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 0-1

Sam Sloan wrote:
Kreiman - US Chess Championship Controversy
Here is the game. What do you think?
1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.Nbd2 c6 7.c3 Na6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Re1 Qc8 10.Qe2 Re8 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.Rec1 Qf5
14.h3 Bxh3 15.Bxh3 Qxh3 16.Qf1 Qf5 17.Kg2 Bf6 18.Qh1 h5 19.Be1 c5
20.Qh3 Qxh3+ 21.Kxh3 c4 22.Nbd2 Nd6 23.b3 b5 24.Kg2 Nc7 25.bxc4
bxc4 26.Kf1 e6 27.Rab1 Rab8 28.Ng1 g5 29.f3 g4 30.f4 Be7 31.Ne2
Kg7 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 0-1

Obviously tis is not a good game from White. White lost the game more or
less at move 14. Perhaps White had the impression that Black was
threatening Ng5 winning a piece and therefore he had to shake off the
pin at any cost. But indeed 14. Re1 would have held on, as 14...Ng5 15.
Nh4 keeps the material balance. To avoid Nh4 Black could have played
14...Qh5 but White still can hold with 15. Bc1 Ng5 16. Nbd2 planning h4
and Qf1. Of course Black doesn't have to play Ng5, White has a very
cramped position and it is psychologically very difficult to admit the
last three moves were just in vain and doing it all backwards. This
opening was a terrible failure.

In the end position White is just waiting for his execution. 33. Rc2 is
forced because the black rook mustn't get in on the 2nd rank. After that
White can just shuffle his pieces back and forth waiting for Black. An
easy plan is Nce8-f6-e4xd2, Rb1, Ne4, f5, Ka4, Ba3 and Black soon
captures the a-pawn. White can't do anything about it.

I was not able to find any games of Mr. de Guzman for comparison.
Chessbase knows a Ricardo Guzman of Chile but according to Chessninja,
de Guzman is a Filipino. The website of the American Open has only this
game of him, none of the other rounds. Also no luck in the Week in Chess
about the whole tournament. I guess the relationship between tournament
organization and press needs some work.

Claus-Juergen

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 02:40:06 +0100,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claus-J=FCrgen_Heigl?=
wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:
Kreiman - US Chess Championship Controversy
Here is the game. What do you think?
1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.Nbd2 c6 7.c3 Na6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Re1 Qc8 10.Qe2 Re8 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.Rec1 Qf5
14.h3 Bxh3 15.Bxh3 Qxh3 16.Qf1 Qf5 17.Kg2 Bf6 18.Qh1 h5 19.Be1 c5
20.Qh3 Qxh3+ 21.Kxh3 c4 22.Nbd2 Nd6 23.b3 b5 24.Kg2 Nc7 25.bxc4
bxc4 26.Kf1 e6 27.Rab1 Rab8 28.Ng1 g5 29.f3 g4 30.f4 Be7 31.Ne2
Kg7 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 0-1

Obviously tis is not a good game from White. White lost the game more or
less at move 14. Perhaps White had the impression that Black was
threatening Ng5 winning a piece and therefore he had to shake off the
pin at any cost. But indeed 14. Re1 would have held on, as 14...Ng5 15.
Nh4 keeps the material balance. To avoid Nh4 Black could have played
14...Qh5 but White still can hold with 15. Bc1 Ng5 16. Nbd2 planning h4
and Qf1. Of course Black doesn't have to play Ng5, White has a very
cramped position and it is psychologically very difficult to admit the
last three moves were just in vain and doing it all backwards. This
opening was a terrible failure.

In the end position White is just waiting for his execution. 33. Rc2 is
forced because the black rook mustn't get in on the 2nd rank. After that
White can just shuffle his pieces back and forth waiting for Black. An
easy plan is Nce8-f6-e4xd2, Rb1, Ne4, f5, Ka4, Ba3 and Black soon
captures the a-pawn. White can't do anything about it.

I was not able to find any games of Mr. de Guzman for comparison.
Chessbase knows a Ricardo Guzman of Chile but according to Chessninja,
de Guzman is a Filipino. The website of the American Open has only this
game of him, none of the other rounds. Also no luck in the Week in Chess
about the whole tournament. I guess the relationship between tournament
organization and press needs some work.

Claus-Juergen

Thank you for your analysis.

Ricardo De Guzman is an International Master from the Philippines. His
FIDE ID number is 5200121 .

His USCF Rating is 2483

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12621677

The reason you cannot find his name on the FIDE Rating list is that
NONE of the Filipino players are on the list. I presume that this is
because the Philippines Chess Federation has not paid their FIDE dues.
Perhaps this has to do with the fact that there is a split between two
Philippines Chess Federations.

Sam Sloan

En/na Claus-Jürgen Heigl ha escrit:

(...) Maybe de Guzman had a bad day at the end of a stressful
tournament. If there are no other proofs for the accusation of game
fixing I'd say the accusation is founded rather weakly.

Claus-Juergen

Hello Claus Juergen,

I agree, white played a poor opening and had a very bad position.
I agree too white is lost in final position.

The big question is what evidence is enough to prove a game was sold.

- "Poor play" is not an evidence, all we have bad days!
(Capablanca lost a piece in move 9th in Saemisch-Capablanca, Carlsbad
1929. 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3 d6 6 f3 c5 7 e4 Nc6
8.Be3 b6 9 Bd3 Ba6?? 10 Qa4! Bb7 11 d5 ).
- "Different as habitual openings used" are neither a evidence,
sometimes we try to play some different due to many different reasons.
- "Different style" is hard to evaluate, we sometimes prefer to play
quietely and sometimes we play sharper.

As nobody saw Mr De Guzman receiving money, it seems in this case there
are no evidences.

Here in Catalonia (Spain), a GM (Azer Mirzoev) was acused of trying to
buy a game and was condemned to 1 year without playing tournaments
here. The only argument was another GM (with a large tradition of being
honest and with no known interests in this case) who received the offer
(and He rejected it, of course) and an idependent witness.
After that sentence other grandmasters were arguing that that argument
was not enough to condemn someone and the decision was appealed.
There is also another discusion involving GM Komljenovic who has being
accused many times for similar questions.

For people interested in this discusions (in Spanish) see the following
links: http://www.ajedreznd.com/2005/ciclismo.htm and
http://www.ajedreznd.com/2005/mayerciutat.htm

Antonio

wrote:
The big question is what evidence is enough to prove a game was sold.

In general I would strongly caution against basing such a conclusion
on the game score alone.

"Taylor Kingston" writes:

wrote:
The big question is what evidence is enough to prove a game was sold.

In general I would strongly caution against basing such a conclusion
on the game score alone.

I was just reading over a Zukertort-Steinitz game. Zukertort
has spent some time pushing forward his queen side pawns and
eventually threatened to trap Steinitz' undeveloped QR and QN.
Steinitz ignored the threat and Zukertort failed to play it,
losing rapidly (in part because of the wasted time setting up
the threat he didn't play). Euwe confirms that Zukertort would
have gained the upper hand had he followed b5 with c6. This
did not happen in time pressure.

As internal "evidence" for a fix this would seem to be as good
as it gets. Particularly as Zukertort had routed Steinitz in
the first half of the match, but was now losing ("throwing")
almost every game.

Naturally not many people (I was going to say "nobody", but
who knows?) think Zukertort was doing anything but trying to
win the title he'd been after for two decades, but imagine
if this game happened to be Keres-Botvinnik, 1948?


--
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

Taylor Kingston wrote:
In general I would strongly caution against basing such a conclusion
on the game score alone.

Indeed the game score is not sufficient. Two other bits of
circumstantial evidence that nobody has posted yet in this thread.

a DeGuzman has a history of playing the opening poorly, usually
against untitled players (not against GMs). However, he wins most of
those games anyways with his tremendous fighting spirit and strong
middle- and endgame play. The game presented doesn't show much
fighting spirit. White loses a pawn and merely goes down without a
fight.

b There has been testimony from witnesses that neither player was at
the board much during this game. It certainly seems strange that
black, needing a win to qualify for the US Championship, apparently did
not sit much at the board. After all, he was playing a formidable
opponent (at least on paper) with the black pieces!

Whether this adds up to cheating is not for me to determine. But I'm
extremely disappointed by these events.

Michael Aigner

Here is the game. What do you think?

Sam Sloan


[Event "41st American Open"]
[Site "Los Angeles"]
[Date "2005.11.27"]
[Round "08"]
[White "De Guzman, Ricardo"]
[Black "Kreiman, Boris"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.Nbd2 c6 7.c3 Na6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Re1 Qc8 10.Qe2 Re8 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.Rec1 Qf5
14.h3 Bxh3 15.Bxh3 Qxh3 16.Qf1 Qf5 17.Kg2 Bf6 18.Qh1 h5 19.Be1 c5
20.Qh3 Qxh3+ 21.Kxh3 c4 22.Nbd2 Nd6 23.b3 b5 24.Kg2 Nc7 25.bxc4
bxc4 26.Kf1 e6 27.Rab1 Rab8 28.Ng1 g5 29.f3 g4 30.f4 Be7 31.Ne2
Kg7 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 0-1

I hate to admit it but it does look a little phony. Why is Kreiman
playing passively? Whether the game is fixed or not I couldn't care
less. If Kreiman doesn't belong in the US Championship, then it will
clearly show that in the tournament he will be totally in over his
head. His result will show.

EZoto

wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
a DeGuzman has a history of playing the opening poorly, usually
against untitled players (not against GMs). However, he wins most of
those games anyways with his tremendous fighting spirit and strong
middle- and endgame play. The game presented doesn't show much
fighting spirit. White loses a pawn and merely goes down without a
fight.

Every player once in a while has a bad day. After the opening did go so
wrong I can imagine White lost interest. There may have been other
reasons for the poor show (little sleep, whatever). The burden of proof
is on the accusant.

b There has been testimony from witnesses that neither player was at
the board much during this game. It certainly seems strange that
black, needing a win to qualify for the US Championship, apparently did
not sit much at the board. After all, he was playing a formidable
opponent (at least on paper) with the black pieces!

Doesn't prove a thing. Many players are wandering around during a
tournament while still thinking on the game. During the Kasparov-Karpov
matches both players often were only at the board while making their
moves, thinking about the game in another room. After 13...Qf5, Black
probably went on autopilot and could afford not beeing at the board.

From what is presented here I am not convinced.

Claus-Juergen

EZoto wrote:
Here is the game. What do you think?

Sam Sloan


[Event "41st American Open"]
[Site "Los Angeles"]
[Date "2005.11.27"]
[Round "08"]
[White "De Guzman, Ricardo"]
[Black "Kreiman, Boris"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D02"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.O-O O-O 6.Nbd2 c6 7.c3 Na6
8.e3 Bf5 9.Re1 Qc8 10.Qe2 Re8 11.Nb3 Bg4 12.Bd2 Ne4 13.Rec1 Qf5
14.h3 Bxh3 15.Bxh3 Qxh3 16.Qf1 Qf5 17.Kg2 Bf6 18.Qh1 h5 19.Be1 c5
20.Qh3 Qxh3+ 21.Kxh3 c4 22.Nbd2 Nd6 23.b3 b5 24.Kg2 Nc7 25.bxc4
bxc4 26.Kf1 e6 27.Rab1 Rab8 28.Ng1 g5 29.f3 g4 30.f4 Be7 31.Ne2
Kg7 32.Rxb8 Rxb8 0-1

I hate to admit it but it does look a little phony. Why is Kreiman
playing passively? Whether the game is fixed or not I couldn't care
less. If Kreiman doesn't belong in the US Championship, then it will
clearly show that in the tournament he will be totally in over his
head. His result will show.

EZoto

That is not the point. Kreiman is a Grandmaster and he DOES belong in
the US Championship.

But so do many other top players.

The last time Kreiman played in the US Championship he scored a number
of upsets and was in contention for first prize almost until the end.

This time he will probably do well again, but so would the next player
down, Jesse Kraai, if he had had this chance to play in the US
Championship (unlike Kreiman, he played last year.)

Sam Sloan