At 12:41 AM 4/14/2004 EDT, wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/04 5:49:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:


2. Also, your argument comes down to "this broke up the handpicked team
that worked hard to train for Mallorca". Well you know what, tough freaking
cookies. The Training Squad has nothing to do with USCF's requirements. I
like Susan and Paul, but they aren't in the business of handpicking who goes.

John Fernandez


On this we agree 100 percent.

ECJ

The training squad consisted of the five best players. Take a look at
the rating list.

http://www.uschess.org/ratings/top/apr04/women.php

If we do not send the best players we have we cannot win a medal.

Eric Johnson feels that the Olympiad is an amateur event and our team
should go for the fun of it and for the honor of representing the US
and its not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

Apparently, some of our players disagree and want to win.

Sam Sloan

In article ,
says...
At 12:41 AM 4/14/2004 EDT, wrote:
In a message dated 4/13/04 5:49:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:


2. Also, your argument comes down to "this broke up the handpicked team
that worked hard to train for Mallorca". Well you know what, tough freaking
cookies. The Training Squad has nothing to do with USCF's requirements. I
like Susan and Paul, but they aren't in the business of handpicking who goes.

John Fernandez


On this we agree 100 percent.

ECJ

The training squad consisted of the five best players. Take a look at
the rating list.

http://www.uschess.org/ratings/top/apr04/women.php

If we do not send the best players we have we cannot win a medal.

Eric Johnson feels that the Olympiad is an amateur event and our team
should go for the fun of it and for the honor of representing the US
and its not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

Apparently, some of our players disagree and want to win.

Sam Sloan



Wait a minute...is that THE Alexandra Kosteniuk listed at the top?! The
newly crowned European Women's Champion for 2004?! Another
question...how did Angelina Belakovskaia get a jump on Jennifer Shahade
in the ratings? And what is the situation with Anna Zatonskih? Is she on
the team? Because with all the attention on Rusudan Goletiani, I
couldn't help but wonder what the situation is on Zatonskih. Is she
allowed to play on the team?

Final questions...if my understanding is correct...Rusudan Goletiani and
Jennifer Shahade are supposed to duke it out in a rapid games match in
what? May? to determine the final fourth woman to make the Olympiad
team. Is that right? I'm wondering if these games will be broadcast live
on the Playchess server. I'd love to watch them from there. But I'm
still confused on the situation with Anna Hahn. From what I
understand..there's been some kind of compromise made on her situation.
Can anybody explain what the deal is on that front? Thanks in advance.

At 04:03 PM 4/15/2004 -0400, John Fernandez wrote:
At 01:58 PM 4/15/2004, Sam Sloan wrote:
You think this proves your point but actually it proves our point.

Of course, it doesn't, but nice try anyway.

Anna Hahn played only 10 games in an entire year. She thought that she
could sit on her rating and play on both the Olympiad Team and in the
US Championship without playing a single game.

Then why did she play 10 games?

I suppose (but I am just guessing) that Beatriz told her that she had
to play another game.

Now that she has found out that she must remain active to compete, she
plays in Foxwoods.

Actually, she doesn't need to be active for about another year or so, since
she's now got 10 games. After all, there is no Olympiad in 2005, and she's
good for the 2005 US Championships since she's already got the games in.

Wait a second. Being US Woman's Champion gets her into the 2004 US
Woman's Championship which will be held in June, 2004.

The winner of that tournament, and not Anna Hahn, gets seeded into the
2005 US Championship.

Has everybody forgotten about that?


This was her first appearance in an Open Tournament
in more than a year.

Really? She played an open tournament a couple of weeks ago.

If you are talking about your Marshall Tuesday Night Masters, that is
not an open tournament. You have to be a master to get in, plus Anna
Hahn played only one game and dropped out.

The US Amateur Team Championship East was also not an open tournament.

The last time Anna Hahn played in an open tournament was in December
2002 when she played in the North American Open.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain....29911-12577910


She achieved a fairly good result and gained a few rating points. Her
final score was 4 1/2 - 4 1/2 in a strong field. She finished 51 out
of 135 players.

http://www.foxwoodsopen.com/standings.htm

She did better than Goletiani.

She got a better score that Goletiani. Goletiani was ahead in points
but lost the last two games. I do not know who had a better
performance. Nevertheless, Anna Hahn did produce a good result,
beating a player rated 2500 in the first round.

So, we have won the argument and you have lost because this proves
that if she is required to be active she will start playing again.

Sam Sloan

She doesn't need to be active anymore, since she already has the 10 games.

And I guess you mean she can't play for the sake of playing again. Yeesh.

John Fernandez

Everybody seems to have overloked the fact that she has not yet
qualified for the 2005 US Championship.

Sam Sloan

At 03:19 AM 4/16/2004 -0000, Anjelina wrote:
Please read below e-mails I got.

I am absolutely against the idea of CHOOSING Olympic Team members!

It is a perfect way to open the door for bribery, favoritism and
unprofessional decisions, a way to increase amount of lawsuit
threats, this time due to discrimination by age or race (no gender, I
guess ).

Why does anyone or even a group has to have a privilege of deciding
someone else's fate? As of now, there is not much competition in
women's chess in the US. I don't see any senior citizens occupying
spots in the Team and taking it away from a young protég?E As a
result, we are going to end up with favoring one young player over
another. It won't matter how well you play, it will matter whom you
know and are friendly with.

The very next level of absurdity is to open it for voting by all USCF
members and run a swimsuit competition.

I strongly believe that rules have to be established, known to
everyone and unbreakable. The strongest player, player in the best
form, or the one who can combine it with the desire to win and even
some luck will make the team. What else, if not a US CHAMPIONSHIP,
would make a perfect test? The player who wants to represent the
UNITED STATES, HAS TO PLAY IN THE US CHAMPIONSHIP! And if the US
Champion doesn't have a right to play in the Olympiad and represent
the United States, then the champion of which country has this
right?

Sincerely,
Anjelina

Most Dearest Anjelina,

Thank you for your most helpful suggestion that the US Woman's
Olympiad Team should be decided on the basis of a swimsuit
competition. This we will put on our action to-do list.

Since you have been out of the loop for a while, I will bring you up
to date on a burning issue.

I was not at the Bled Olympiad, I do not know what happened there and
I have no opinion on the subject.

However, what I have heard was that there were a lot of conflicts
between the team captain and one of the players, a lady by the name of
Elena.

As a result, the team captain wanted Elena kicked off the team.
Apparently she refused to play in some matches.

This issue was hotly debated on this group about one year ago. The
lady's one-true-love came on and defended her and denied that she had
refused to play.

I do not know the truth of the matter and so I stayed out of the
argument.

However, years ago we had the same argument. A player by the name of
Sammy would play in the Olympiad, but he insisted that he always have
the white pieces. With black, he would not play. This Sammy was a very
strong player when money was at stake, but in the Olympiad he got paid
the same whether he won or lost, so he almost always drew his games.

So, finally, they threw this Sammy off the US Olympiad team, even
though he was the strongest player in the US and possibly even the
world.

By the way, this Sammy was not me, in case you were wondering that.

So, the point is, it is not always a good idea to put the highest
rated player on the team.

Sammy Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sam,

1) what exactly was Anna's rating one year ago?
2) what is it today? (after another 10 games)
3) what are the ratings of the other squad members?
4) if the difference is more than 150 points, does it make sense to have a
tournament champ in the squad at all?*
5) do you think the players want to win, and it is therefore motivating to
send the objectively strongest ELO squad to the Olympiad**

Cordially, Phil Innes

* I ask this because there is a presumption that anyone winning a tournament
is on top form and should be included because, as I have seen it expressed,
'their ELO hasn't caught up with their current performance level.'
Therefore, is by-tournament selection actually sensible? [unsure, but I
think by John F]

** Asked because I have also seen it expressed that perhaps the women all
want to go and 'be girls together' or something, and trying to win has
nothing to do with participation, but 'representing USA' is honor enough. [I
think by Eric J]

Most of these questions can be answered at:
http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12577910

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:42:52 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sam,

1) what exactly was Anna's rating one year ago?

2231

2) what is it today? (after another 10 games)

2236 except that the last game which she lost to a grandmaster has not
been rated yet, so she probably lost one or two points in that game.

3) what are the ratings of the other squad members?

Polgar, Zsuzsa NY 2545

Zatonskih, Anna OH 2463

Krush, Irina NY 2455

Goletiani, Rusudan NY 2376

Belakovskaia, Anjelina NJ 2370

Shahade, Jennifer NY 2359

Note that Belakovskaia, Anjelina was not included in the training
squad because in March 2003 when the squad was formed she had not
played in a rated tournament since 1999 and was believed to have
retired.

4) if the difference is more than 150 points, does it make sense to have a
tournament champ in the squad at all?*

As I understand it, Anna Hahn was invited to join but she declined the
invitation because of her full time job at Goldman Sachs.

By the way, the last time I saw Ana Hahn was in a Bankers Athletic
League match in which my team played the team from Goldman Sachs. I
won my individual game which I posted on this group. I think Anna Hahn
lost but I am not sure. The match ended in a 2-2 tie but the Goldman
Sachs team won the league on tie-breaking points. We had to win that
match to win the league. Our team of ringers like me could not beat
Goldman Sachs although I won every game I played in the league. My
score was 5-0 in the league and my average opponent was rated higher
than me. I attribute my fantastic result to the fact that these
matches were not rated and therefore my opponents were perhaps not
trying hard.

5) do you think the players want to win, and it is therefore motivating to
send the objectively strongest ELO squad to the Olympiad**

Cordially, Phil Innes

Obviously, having a player on the team who will be rated 200 points
lower than most of her opponents makes winning an extreme
unlikelihood. Even the team from VietNam will have a player rated
higher than 2400 on board four.

* I ask this because there is a presumption that anyone winning a tournament
is on top form and should be included because, as I have seen it expressed,
'their ELO hasn't caught up with their current performance level.'
Therefore, is by-tournament selection actually sensible? [unsure, but I
think by John F]

Anna Hahn is not an improving player. She is a declining player. Her
rating 11 years ago on the Year End 1993 rating list was 2246. Now her
rating is lower than that. Her peak rating was August 1997 when she
was rated 2352.

Of course, having a regular job with Goldman Sachs is obviously a
factor in this decline. If she quits her job making more than $100,000
per year, her chess will get better. Therefore, we should all
encourage her to quit.

** Asked because I have also seen it expressed that perhaps the women all
want to go and 'be girls together' or something, and trying to win has
nothing to do with participation, but 'representing USA' is honor enough. [I
think by Eric J]

She has played no FIDE rated games in more than a year so that
information is not helpful.

http://www.fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=2008602

Sam Sloan

Sam,

1) what exactly was Anna's rating one year ago?

2231

2) what is it today? (after another 10 games)

2236 except that the last game which she lost to a grandmaster has
not
been rated yet, so she probably lost one or two points in that
game.

3) what are the ratings of the other squad members?

Polgar, Zsuzsa NY 2545

Zatonskih, Anna OH 2463

Krush, Irina NY 2455

Goletiani, Rusudan NY 2376


I make that an average of 2460, over the top 4 boards, and Anna has
a difference from the average of -224 points.

4) if the difference is more than 150 points, does it make sense
to have a
tournament champ in the squad at all?*

As I understand it, Anna Hahn was invited to join but she declined
the
invitation because of her full time job at Goldman Sachs.


Yes, I understand the circumstance of her job, but my question is
other than that. I am essentially questioning the wisdom of
qualifying by tournament into a /team/ event.

Perhaps like other posters here I still like this idea better
(despite the difference of 224 points from average, absurd!) than
any 'selection process' conducted by chess politicians. What
possible objective basis could they use?

~~~~~~
[aside]

Our team of ringers like me could not beat
Goldman Sachs although I won every game I played in the league. My
score was 5-0 in the league and my average opponent was rated
higher
than me. I attribute my fantastic result to the fact that these
matches were not rated and therefore my opponents were perhaps not
trying hard.

Although some players can lose with grace, I never met any strong
player in my entire life that liked losing in the least. It must
have been your unusual flank openings which bushwacked 'em. [Who
honestly knows 7 moves of any line grin. We Brits do the same on
the other [Q side] of the board.

Having said that, like you M. Basman made it to IM playing nothing
other than Grobs and Borgs.

~~~~~~~
5) do you think the players want to win, and it is therefore
motivating to
send the objectively strongest ELO squad to the Olympiad**

Cordially, Phil Innes

Obviously, having a player on the team who will be rated 200 points
lower than most of her opponents makes winning an extreme
unlikelihood. Even the team from VietNam will have a player rated
higher than 2400 on board four.

My count is an average of approx the same as the top4 US players of
24middle, for the world's top 8 teams, though on average slightly
higher - these statistics skewed by S. Polgar's very strong rating.

I make this comment only to illustrate that a strong woman's team
has a fair chance of bringing home a cup. And who knows what they
will come out with since they have the strongest possible player in
the world as trainer.

I completely understand that player's will not fight unless they can
win [in a team sense] and are motivated to a consquent lesser degree if it
seems impossible.

~~~~~~~~~

Of course, having a regular job with Goldman Sachs is obviously a
factor in this decline. If she quits her job making more than
$100,000
per year, her chess will get better. Therefore, we should all
encourage her to quit.

I imagine she is an extremely intelligent young woman, and for
encouragement, that we should not do as you say.

I hope she enjoys her chess - rare for master level players [who are
amateurs] to be entirely stable in any case. Who would disagree with
the idea that two week's concentrated and disciplined analysis
offers +100 points, and another two week's play against v. strong
players wouldn't offer less than another 50 or more?

How can any person in a demanding profession afford this much
preparation time?

Cordially, Phil Innes


Sam Sloan

At 06:12 PM 4/16/2004 -0000, zomorodki wrote:


Having said that, like you, M. Basman made it to IM playing nothing
other than Grobs and Borgs.


Not true. I taught Basman how to play the Grob 1.g4. I stayed as a
guest at Basman's home south of London for two days in February 1978
while trying to put a call through to my one-true-love at the time,
Laura Markarian in Armenia. Basman is Armenian and agreed to
translate. http://www.samsloan.com/laura.htm

During the two days in Basman's house I showed him all my analysis of
1.g4 Basman had never seen it played before and thought it lost by
force. After two days I was able to convince him that the opening was
playable.

Basman was already an International Master. He never played the Grob
before I showed it to him. He started playing it the next year, in
1979. You can check that out.

However, Basman deserves full credit for inventing the Borg 1. e4 g5.
I would never have dreamed to play that. I have tried it a few times
since with very poor results.

Sam Sloan

..
Not true. I taught Basman how to play the Grob 1.g4. I stayed as a
guest at Basman's home south of London for two days in February 1978
while trying to put a call through to my one-true-love at the time,
Laura Markarian in Armenia. Basman is Armenian and agreed to
translate. http://www.samsloan.com/laura.htm

During the two days in Basman's house I showed him all my analysis of
1.g4 Basman had never seen it played before and thought it lost by
force. After two days I was able to convince him that the opening was
playable.

Basman was already an International Master. He never played the Grob
before I showed it to him.


Well, after two days of constant badgering, without any sleep, we can't
really blame him for breaking down under pressure and losing his firm grasp of
reality.



However, Basman deserves full credit for inventing the Borg 1. e4 g5.
I would never have dreamed to play that.


Okay -- Basman gets all the blame for 1....g5, then.



I have tried it a few times
since with very poor results.


Try wiping the excess oil off of the g7 pawn next time. That way, when you
go to play 1....g6, the pawn won't slip out of your hand and end up who knows
where -- crippling your position.





"If you can't be known for playing well, you can at least be known for
playing weird stuff." -- Joe Patzer

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
At 06:12 PM 4/16/2004 -0000, zomorodki wrote:


Having said that, like you, M. Basman made it to IM playing nothing
other than Grobs and Borgs.


Not true. I taught Basman how to play the Grob 1.g4. I stayed as a
guest at Basman's home south of London for two days in February 1978
while trying to put a call through to my one-true-love at the time,
Laura Markarian in Armenia. Basman is Armenian and agreed to
translate. http://www.samsloan.com/laura.htm

During the two days in Basman's house I showed him all my analysis of
1.g4 Basman had never seen it played before and thought it lost by
force. After two days I was able to convince him that the opening was
playable.

Basman was already an International Master. He never played the Grob
before I showed it to him. He started playing it the next year, in
1979. You can check that out.

However, Basman deserves full credit for inventing the Borg 1. e4 g5.
I would never have dreamed to play that. I have tried it a few times
since with very poor results.

Sam, thanks for the corrections - I thought he had played it earlier, and
should have checked since I have his book here somewhere. I find that 1...
g5 works better after 1.c4 perhaps because the critical square c3 cannot now
be occupied by a pawn. And I note Bas jokes in his book that it is now a
forced win for black. Did you base your own Grob on Bloodgood or anyone in
particular? BillWall? Or did you devise it as a mirrored Sokolski?

Cordially, Phil

Sam Sloan