At 09:13 AM 3/23/2004 -0800, Mike Goodall wrote:
The US Chess Championship is a Swiss System tournament in which the women
are thrown in with the men. This is an absurdity. The top women in the 03
Championship all got even scores in the nine round event, each playing
fields of vastly different strengths. Then, to compound the absurdity, they
played a five-minute chess playoff, where luck reigned supreme. This farce
was called for by the sponsor, who put up a huge prize fund. Now Hahn, who
played the weakest field in the tournament and then lucked out in a few
speed games, is the reigning champion. The rules say that the reigning
champion plays on the Olympic team. They might as well determine the team by
throwing dice.
Mike

Right. This correctly states the problem. Having the women play in the
same section with the men, which included allowing a 12-year-old girl
named Hana Itkis with a 1700 rating to play in the 2002 US
Championship, was a cute publicity stunt. However, it is no longer
cute when this publicity stunt is used to exclude a strong player and
to include a much weaker player on our Olympic team.

What I see on the horizon is that possibly the co-operation between
the USCF and the American Foundation for Chess will be strained. It
was very controversial to give the US Chess Championship to Erik
Anderson. Now, he wants to take over USCF scholastic chess too. He
really caused the problem here by not being able to organize the US
Championship on schedule.

In short, our entire program for "out-sourcing" the US Chess
Championship may collapse because of this controversy. I believe that
we will have to think twice before handing over scholastic chess to
him too.

Sam Sloan

You misrepresent the situation as usual. If you weren't lying I would
say you were stupid.

At 02:29 AM 3/25/2004 -0600, wrote:

------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:12:51 GMT, wrote:

It does not matter what you call it. The 2004 US Woman's Championship
was supposed to have been held in January. It was not held then for
financial reasons. So, if we hold it in April, next month, that puts
Anna Hahn back in the same position she was. In addition, Rusudan
Goletiani was wrongly denied the right to play in the 2003 US
Championship. Somehow, by some mistake, her name was dropped from the
rating list and she was not invited. So holding the tournament next
month would solve that problem as well.

Okay, there are a few different issues you're mixing up:

- Timing. In all honesty, the US Champs seem to be returning to their usual late year spot. Remember in 2000 it was Sept-October, then we went to 2002 in January and now we're going back to November. I don't see how having Anna be US Women's champion for 22 months or so is any more tragic as it was in 2000-2002. Also more ridiculous is we'd have a US Champion with a reign of 5 months. THAT'S absurd, no?

What is absurd is that a tournament which was never intended to be a
qualifier for the Olympic team suddenly becomes one because the USCF
lacks the funds to hold a real qualification tournament. This entire
problem is the result of the fact that the US Championship originally
scheduled for January 2004 was cancelled. How can we be sure that the
November event will not be cancelled or postponed for the same reason?

- Flipping the coin again. No matter what, this is an attempt to have another event so that Anna can have an opportunity to lose the title. You're not happy with what happened in 2003 (hell, I wasn't at the time either), and want a do-over.

Same lie by Fernandez. The 2003 US Championship was not a qualifier.
For example, when the US Championship was also a zonal to qualify
players for the Interzonal for the world championship, suppose it had
happened that the US lacked the funds to hold a zonal that year, and
so decided to send the top players in the previous US Championship to
the Interzonal. Would that have been acceptable?

For example, when he was 14, Bobby Fischer won the 1957-58 US
Championship and thereby qualified to the Interzonal and from there to
the candidates. The rest is history. Suppose the US had lacked the
funds and therefore sent Bisguier who was the winner of the previous
US Championship. Would that have been fair and right?

- Player eligibility. This one is pretty far-fetched. Should Shabba have to play for it again, too? (After all, if this wasn't about Anna Hahn, you'd be demanding the same for Shabba's automatic spot.) Heck, Goldin wasn't eligible then. Onischuk wasn't eligible either. MAKE HIM PLAY TOO!

Right now, Shabalov is the number 6 rated player. Since 6 players go
to the Men's Olympiad, he qualifies both by rating and by the US
Championship. It is true that this could change when the final list
comes out. Several players are clumped together with about the same
rating. Yasser Seirawan might be in or out by one or two rating
points. Joel Benjamin is close but not making the team.

We simply do not have the $100,000 it would take to hold the (men's)
US Championship. However, to hold a US Woman's Championship of six
players could probably be done for less than two thousand dollars,
especially since all but one of the woman live in the New York City
area.

Otherwise, you're just proving that you're trying to remove Anna because she's somehow "less worthy" of the title.

It is not because she is "less worthy". It is because her victory was
a fluke. Anna won by defeating four experts, players rated less than
2200. Meanwhile, Jennifer Shahade scored all her points from players
averaging about 2500.

Take a look at
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....19210-12577910

Also, you are wrong in your calculations. Although the New York
Masters in which she played last year was a four round tournament, she
only played in three of those rounds.

I am the Masters. I'm aware of that.

Not quite. Gregory Shahade sponsors the New York Masters and I think
he ought to fire you for trying so hard to keep his sister off the US
Olympic Team. Probably he does not know about this yet and that is why
you are still working there.

The USATE in New Jersey last
month has not been rated yet,

It better damn well be in the April rating list. It ended 6 weeks ago.

so it seems unlikely that the tournament
you directed last night will be rated by April 1.

It wouldn't shock me if it did. I've been firing off NYM events last minute just before supplements get finalized for over 2 years. Sometimes they make it, sometimes they don't.

If the tournament this past Tuesday is leap-frogged over other
tournaments six weeks ago just to get that one game rated, this will
be highly objectionable.

It seems that you
are straining awfully hard to get Anna Hahn a spot on the team

I don't have to do any work for that to happen. Anna got it herself last January in Seattle. I have nothing to do with it. To say anyone other than Anna is responsible for her spot on the team is insulting.

Once again, Anna did not "get it" in Seattle. She got it because the
USCF cancelled the tournament which was supposed to be the qualifier.


which she des not deserve

She clearly does deserve it. She went 6-0 versus women, beating Irina and Jenn. She's handled herself with class. To say she doesn't deserve it is very insulting.

This is very insulting because you keep lying or at least distorting.
Anna Hahn only won four games in the 2003 US Championship, and all
were against experts. She defeated Anna Levina (rated 2128), Olga
Sagalchik (rated 2177), Laura Ross (rated 2135) and Elena Groberman
(rated 2164). Of the bottom six players in the tournament, she played
five of them. She played the weakest field of any of the 58 players in
the event.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Shahade played males averaging about 2500.
Jennifer defeated Eugene Perelshteyn (rated 2506) and STANISLAV G
KRIVENTSOV (rated 2424) and drew four very strong players: Hikaru
Nakamura, Gregory Serper, TEGSHSUREN ENKHBAT (rated 2485) and Larry
Kaufman (rated 2465).

In the last round, Jennifer played one of the strongest players in the
tournament, Ben Finegold (rated 2648) and lost. Meanwhile, Irina Krush
played Eugene Perelshteyn (rated 2506) and drew. Elena
Donaldson-Akhmylovskaia played Grandmaster Maurica Ashley and drew.
Anna Hahn, who was behind all of them, played an expert, Elena
Groberman (rated 2164) and won.

You say "She went 6-0 versus women, beating Irina and Jenn." But those
wins over Irina and Jenn were quick chess games. Quick Chess games do
not count for rating purposes. They wanted to hand out the trophies in
the awards ceremonies, so they held a blitz playoff. If I was a woman
I could have won the US Championship that way. Would you still be
making those points then?

thereby denying Jennifer Shahade, a much stronger
and more deserving player, a spot on the team.

I happen to think that it's INSANE that Jenn is likely to not be on the team.

If Anna Hahn is on the team, then is becomes mathematically impossible
for Jennifer Shahade to make the team.

But if you wanted to find real reasons why Jenn wouldn't go - perhaps you'd look into how Goletiani got 46 points all of a sudden for some tourney in Venezuela?

"Some tourney in Venezuela" was the Continental Woman's Championship
for North and South America combined. There were several players rated
over 2400 by FIDE in that tournament. Rusudan Goletiani scored a
fantastic victory against a very strong field. By the way, she has won
the world championship in her age group three times. She won the World
Under-14 Championship, the World Under-16 Championship and the World
Under-18 Championship. Nobody has yet explained why she was not
invited to the 2003 US Championship. Take a look at the back rating
lists.

In the August 2002 list she is the number five rated woman in the US
with a rating of 2342.

http://www.uschess.org/ratings/top50/aug02/Aug02.html

Then, in the October, 2002 list she is not listed at all:

http://www.uschess.org/ratings/top50...t02_women.html

The October, 2002 list was used to decide who got invited to the
January 2003 US Championship. Since she was not on the list, she did
not get invited. Who dropped her name from the list and why?

Or what about the rules trying to be bent to get Zatonskih on the squad? She's STILL technically ineligible, last I checked, by FIDE's rules.

This is a question. This explains why there are five players on Susan
Polgar's "Dream Team". We do not know whether Anna Zatonskih will be
allowed to play in the Olymoiad or not. However, in either case,
putting Anna Hahn on the team completely eliminates any chance
Jennifer Shahade might have for making the team.

Anna's not the only thing likely keeping Jenn out of the squad.

What is your motivation for doing this???

Sam Sloan

As far as getting the NYM results in, that's something I'm supposed to do as a TD. I always try to rush in events before the supplement gets counted. That's just standard fare. Been doing it for years.

John Fernandez

Anybody can read your arguments and see that you are trying hard to
put Anna Hahn, a relatively weak player, on the team and to keep
Jennifer Shahade and possibly Rusudan Goletiani off the team. You even
reject the idea of holding a US Championship tournament to decide the
issue. You have not explained why you are doing that.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote
They wanted to hand out the trophies in
the awards ceremonies, so they held a blitz playoff.

First of all, something as deserving as an Olympiad spot should NOT be decided by a blitz game. Period. They should be co-champs.
If you wanted to hold a playoff for the spot given to the US Champ, then do so, but at proper time controls.

If I was a woman
I could have won the US Championship that way.

If you were a woman ... ah, never mind.

At 07:57 PM 3/31/2004 -0500, John Fernandez wrote:
At 07:27 PM 3/30/2004, you wrote:
In a message dated 3/30/04 1:10:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
writes:

"1. Play at least 10 USCF-rated games (including games played in the
FIDE World Championship cycle, or other recognized world championship
competition) during the twelve month period prior to computation of
invitational ratings."

But it WAS played before the computation.

The computation of invitational ratings are based on the April 2004
list. Therefore, my interpretation is only games that are rated for the
April 2004 list would count. The other interpretation makes no sense to me.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

Susan is right -- games must be rated in time to be included in the rating
list(s) that are used for the actual invitational ratings
calculations. That is true of the newest games for the latest list...and
the oldest games for the oldest list used.

So let's take the USATE this year.

In 2003 - it was received 7 days after being played.
In 2002 - it was received 7 days after being played.
In 2001 - it was received 7 days after being played.
In 2000 - it was received 8 days after being played.

So on and so forth.

Of course, in 2004, it was received on March 1st, 16 days after the event.

Is it unreasonable to expect this event to be counted? Also, MSA seems to
suggest there was some major rating changeover system. If this is the
office being slow/organizer being slow, why punish the player?

Activity requirements were designed for people to PLAY, and not sit on
their ratings, not for people to jump around and go "Hahah USCF didn't rate
your tournament even though you played it."

Any other interpretation flies in the face of 10+ yrs of praxis (in other
words, it is wrong).

I don't believe in that. "The old way" does mean "The right way".

John Fernandez

If Anna Hahn's participation in the US Championship and on the Olympic
team depending on meeting the activity requirement and if the
tournament director was late in reporting the event or pulled a Mike
Nolan and did not report it at all, then she could petition for an
exception to be made to the rule which I am sure would be granted or,
better yet, if the report had been received the Executive Director
could give it priority and make sure it was rated in time for the
April Supplement.

However, what Anna Hahn actually did was wait until the last week
before April 1 and then play a game which she had to know could not
possibly be rated on time. How can an exception be made under such a
circumstance?

The main problem is that the rules are very loosely written. For
example, Susan Polgar correctly pointed out that the rules say that
"All Players" must meet the activity requirement. You say that Eric
Anderson told you that only those players who qualify by rating must
meet the activity requirement. Eric Anderson does not have the right
to decide the USCF rules. This conversation started with Beatriz
insisting that the rules must be followed exactly and that Susan
Polgar was trying to make an exception to the rules by excluding Anna
Hahn. Now, we find out that Anna Hahn did not meet the activity
requirement. You say that the activity requirement does not apply to
her. The rules do not discuss these issues. Also, you claim that
Varuzhan Akobian did not qualify to the US Championship by winnig the
World Open because he had not met the residency requirement. However,
you are wrong. The residency requirement for players under age 20 is
only one year and Akobian was only 17 years old. Similarly, Goletiani
was only 19 years old when she came here and she had met the residency
requirement, but for four consecutive years she was not allowed to
play in the US Championmship even though she was qualified by rating.
She was excluded by Tom Brownscombe who made a lot of decisions
unilaterally without telling anybody about them, not even the
executive board. This discussion we are having now is the first time
these issues have ever been discussed, as far as I am aware.

Sam Sloan

--- "Greg" gregshahade@.. wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what's being discussed exactly, but if
it's whether or not games have to be actually RATED before the
cutoff date to count, or simply PLAYED... then I think its obvious
for many reasons why they not only have to have been played but also
rated.
Also ten games is simply not active. The requirement should be
more like 20-30 games. One of the main points of an activity
requirement (IMO) is so that people who are sitting on their rating,
have to actually risk it (Although there are other points). If they
can play games that won't be rated until after the determining
rating supplement, then this completely defeats the purpose. If it
doesn't get rated in time, I'd say its just tough luck, and they
should have played their required games much earlier.
One thing I really don't think should be supported is people who
try to artificially fulfill activity requirements. That is not what
I'd consider active. Usually if someone doesn't qualify because the
event was rated too late, it means they weren't really active, but
instead played some event near the cutoff.
Anyway forgive me if I missed the point, I only read a few posts.

Greg

You are correct. This is one of the major points under discussion and
I am happy that you agree with me and Eric Johnson who say that the
games must have been rated to count for the activity requirement.

To bring you up to date, this question arose because Anna Hahn had
played only three rated games in the past year and all of them were
played in one of YOUR 30-minute Tuesday Night tournaments at the
Marshall Chess Club. In February, she played six more games at the US
Amateur Team East, but those games were not rated in time due to a
data entry problem described by Mike Nolan. Because that gave her only
nine games and she needed ten games to satisfy the activity
requirement, she played one more 30-minute game at the Marshall Chess
Club only five days before the cut-off date, which she knew could
possibly be rated on time.

This really creates several questions. Should these 30-minute Master's
Tournaments at the Marshall Chess Club really count? These tournaments
are strong with several grandmasters usually competing but since they
are four founds long and last a total of about five hours, starting at
7:00 PM and ending at 12:00 PM, is seems unfair that just by playing
in three of these events a player can make the Olympiad team and
thereby knock a player off the team such as your sister who competes
actively in high level tournaments all around the country all year
long.

A question I have been asking repeatedly is who changed the activity
requirement in August 2003 and why. Prior to August, 2003, the
Activity requirement was 21 games. Somehow in August 2003 the
requirement was reduced to ten games. The entire Susan Polgar "Dream
Team" believed that the requirement was 21 games and they all played
that many games including Susan herself who previously had not played
since 1995. It seems as though the activity requirement was reduced
from 21 games to 10 games by someone who wanted Anna Hahn on the team,
because Anna was the one who benefited from this change. Changing the
rules in the middle of the qualification period should not be allowed.

Finally, Anjelina complains about players who made the activity
requirement by playing B and C players. She is presumably referring to
the "Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge" which is how Susan and some of the
others made part of their activity requirement. However, all but two
of Susan's opponents were experts and masters and she won every game
except for a last round draw, so she is clearly up to form for the
Olympiad team, even though it was not a top-level event.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....16810-20058274

In sum, all of your points are valid.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) wrote ...

A question I have been asking repeatedly is who changed the activity
requirement in August 2003 and why. Prior to August, 2003, the
Activity requirement was 21 games. Somehow in August 2003 the
requirement was reduced to ten games.

It was me. I changed the requirement to only 10 games. At the time,
nobody noticed. But I knew it would cause endless problems later on,
when people realized the true implications. It was an act of revenge
against the USCF because they would not sell my chess trivia game.
Now, of course, I am deeply ashamed of my petty and malicious act. I
wish more than anything that I could go back in time and change
history. But it is too late.

Tim Hanke

On 8 Apr 2004 16:03:05 -0700, (Tim Hanke)
wrote:

(Sam Sloan) wrote ...

A question I have been asking repeatedly is who changed the activity
requirement in August 2003 and why. Prior to August, 2003, the
Activity requirement was 21 games. Somehow in August 2003 the
requirement was reduced to ten games.

It was me. I changed the requirement to only 10 games. At the time,
nobody noticed. But I knew it would cause endless problems later on,
when people realized the true implications. It was an act of revenge
against the USCF because they would not sell my chess trivia game.
Now, of course, I am deeply ashamed of my petty and malicious act. I
wish more than anything that I could go back in time and change
history. But it is too late.

Tim Hanke

I realize that you are joking and being sarcastic but you must know
who really did change the activity requirement, so please tell us.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

I realize that you are joking and being sarcastic but you must know
who really did change the activity requirement, so please tell us.

I did.

StanB

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:18:26 -0400, "StanB"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

I realize that you are joking and being sarcastic but you must know
who really did change the activity requirement, so please tell us.

I did.

StanB

When?

At 06:47 AM 4/8/2004 -0000, Anjelina wrote:
Dear Mr. Truong,

Thanks a lot for highlighting my main points. They are worth
rereading.

Regards,
Anjelina

************************************
WGM Anjelina Belakovskaia
------------------------------------
http://www.anjelinabelakovskaia.com
------------------------------------
"Want to succeed? DO IT!!!"
************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: ]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:34 PM

Subject: Please refrain yourself from such conduct and behavior



WGM Belakovskaia:



I find your comments extremely offensive and insulting and it is a
disgrace to women's chess in America. You have made a long list of
unsubstantiated, irresponsible and false accusations which are quite
damaging to many players as well as US Chess. This behavior may be
acceptable in other countries but not in the United States. I will
also personally file a formal complaint with the USCF Ethics
Committee. Unless a public apology is immediately issued by you to
GM Susan Polgar and other women players involved, I will have no
choice but take further appropriate actions. Thank you.



Regards,

Paul Truong
Captain & Manager
2004 US Women's Olympiad Team

Sorry, Paul, but I do not think you are going to get anywhere on this
one.

I fully agree with you that, for example, Tim Hanke and Stan Booz are
constantly making gratuitous personal attacks gainst you without them
ever offering any constructive, informative or useful information.
However, Anjelina is making some good points, even though I do not
agree with many of them.

One reason I do not agree with Anjelina is that she was left out of
the loop and not consulted on these matters because she completely
dropped out and did not play chess for four years. Her last event was
the 1999 US Woman's Championship, which she won. When you formed your
US Olympuc Team Training Squad in March 2003, Anjelina was considered
to have retired from chess. Now, only recently, Anjelina has gotten
married and has become very active and now she complains that she was
not consulted. However, she does not say what she wants and why she
wants it. She has not said so far that she wants to play on the
Olympiad team. Anyway, she could not say that because her rating is
six points too low. She says that the US Woman's Championship should
be ten players and not eight. However, there is no time nor money for
that. Also, every active player rated over 2300 has been invited and
what purpose would there be to letting two weaker players into the
tournament, one of whom might be Beatriz Marinello herself!

Frankly, while you consider her remarks to be offensive, I find some
of them to be witty and funny. I suspect that it must be her new
husband writing all this, because the author's command of the English
language is quite good.

Here are two of Anjelina's choice remarks:

"It sounds more like girls in a Bordello are fighting over a client,
rather than an Olympic Team preparing to win a medal."

"It is one more deal, cut by Polgar and Co. This tournament is a JOKE,
as I strongly suspect that Susan already started to fill most of the
score sheets."


Of course, we know that Susan Polgar had nothing to do with this deal
and was not entirely happy about it. It is easy to see why you object,
but Anjelina paints this picture of Susan Polgar sitting down and
composing all the games that the players on her team are going to play
against each other, and filling out their scoresheets in advance. I
think I will have to save that image for my movie about this.

Anjelina's return to chess followed by her complaints that she was not
consulted raise an issue. What if Irina Levitina who is rated 2430 but
has not played a game since 1999 and Anna Gulko who is rated 2397 but
had not played a game since 1997 come back and play in three of John
Fernandez's Tuesday night tournaments at the Marshall and then demand
to play on the US Olympic Team, thereby displacing somebody who has
prepared and trained hard for the last year for the event. Would that
be fair and correct?

Sam Sloan