A chess master who is friends with the participants has just related
the following story:

At the conclusion of the 2003 US Chess Championship, three women were
tied for the woman's prize. They were Irina Krush, Jennifer Shahade
and Anna Hahn.

All three of them are friends. Therefore, since both Irina Krush and
Jennifer Shahade had previously won the US Woman's Championship, they
decided to give the title to Anna Hahn.

As a result, the playoff games were either not played or Jennifer and
Irina lost the games on purpose.

I have been told to ask Jennifer or Irina about this the next time I
see them and they will confirm this.

This story has cerdibility and relevance for the following reasons:
Anna Hahn is reported as having won both games. However, Anna is rated
more than 200 points below Irina Krush and more than 150 points below
Jennifer Shahade. According to statistics, her chance of beating Irina
is less than 25% (not counting draws) and her chance of beating
Jennifer is less than 37.5 % (not counting draws). Thus, her chance of
winning both games was less than 9%.

Does anybody know: Were draws allowed in these games, or were these
sudden death games with 5 to 4 and Black has draw odds?

This is a hot issue now because the USCF President is demanding that
Anna Hahn be placed on the US Woman's team for the Olympiad on the
basis of winning these blitz play-off games. This will mean that
Jennifer Shahade will not make the team. So, if truns out that these
were not real games, that might be relevant.

Sam Sloan

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:33:54 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

A chess master who is friends with the participants has just related
the following story:

At the conclusion of the 2003 US Chess Championship, three women were
tied for the woman's prize. They were Irina Krush, Jennifer Shahade
and Anna Hahn.

All three of them are friends. Therefore, since both Irina Krush and
Jennifer Shahade had previously won the US Woman's Championship, they
decided to give the title to Anna Hahn.

As a result, the playoff games were either not played or Jennifer and
Irina lost the games on purpose.

I have been told to ask Jennifer or Irina about this the next time I
see them and they will confirm this.

Why would they admit something like this, even if it actually
happened? Wouldn't this get them disqualified from future events or
some equally severe penalty?

This story has cerdibility and relevance for the following reasons:
Anna Hahn is reported as having won both games. However, Anna is rated
more than 200 points below Irina Krush and more than 150 points below
Jennifer Shahade. According to statistics, her chance of beating Irina
is less than 25% (not counting draws) and her chance of beating
Jennifer is less than 37.5 % (not counting draws). Thus, her chance of
winning both games was less than 9%.

The games were published on the championship web site (which,
unfortunately, doesn't appear operational at the moment). As I
remember, Shehade attacked very optimistically against Hahn in both
games and her position disintegrated.

Anyway, what's wrong with the explanation that one player had a very
good tournament and scored much better than would have been predicted
from the ratings? And that some other players had an off day during
the playoff?

How many tournaments have been won by underdogs?

Does anybody know: Were draws allowed in these games, or were these
sudden death games with 5 to 4 and Black has draw odds?

This is a hot issue now because the USCF President is demanding that
Anna Hahn be placed on the US Woman's team for the Olympiad on the
basis of winning these blitz play-off games. This will mean that
Jennifer Shahade will not make the team. So, if truns out that these
were not real games, that might be relevant.

Are you suggesting that if a players claims to have thrown the games,
that player will be rewarded by a position on the Olympic team ?? I
can't believe even the most status-hungry bureaucrat would stoop that
low. What would the Olympics be worth in that event ?

Sam Sloan

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:34:05 -0800, Mike Murray
wrote:


As a result, the playoff games were either not played or Jennifer and
Irina lost the games on purpose.

The games were published on the championship web site (which,
unfortunately, doesn't appear operational at the moment). As I
remember, Shehade attacked very optimistically against Hahn in both
games and her position disintegrated.


OK. They evidently moved things. Here they a

http://www.af4c.org/oldsite/tgv/playoff.pgn

[Event "United States Championship 2003 Women's Playoff"]
[Site "SEATTLE USA"]
[Date "2003.01.19"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Hahn,A"]
[Black "Krush,I"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteTitle "WIM"]
[WhiteElo "2219"]
[WhiteCountry "USA"]
[BlackTitle "WGM"]
[BlackElo "2433"]
[BlackCountry "USA"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4
b5 8.
Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. d5 Qc7 11. dxe6 fxe6 12. O-O Bb7 13. Bc2 Bd6 14.
Ng5 Nf8
15. f4 O-O-O 16. Qe2 h6 17. Nf3 Bxf4 18. e5 Bxc1 19. Raxc1 Nd5 20. Ne4
Kb8
21. a4 c4 22. Nd6 Nd7 23. axb5 Qb6+ 24. Qf2 Rhf8 25. bxa6 Bxa6 26. Ra1
Bb7
27. Nxc4 Qxf2+ 28. Rxf2 Nb4 29. Bg6 Bd5 30. b3 Rf4 31. Ra4 Nc6 32.
Rfa2 Rg4
33. Bh5 Bxf3 34. Bxg4 Bxg4 35. Nd6 Ndxe5 36. Ra8+ Kc7 37. Ne8+ Kb7 38.
Rxd8
Nxd8 39. Nxg7 Nec6 40. Rd2 e5 41. h3 Bc8 42. Ne8 Kb6 43. Nd6 Be6 44.
g4 Kc5
45. Ne4+ Kb5 46. Rd6 Bxb3 47. Rxh6 Ne6 48. g5 Ncd4 49. g6 Bc2 50. Ng3
Kc5
51. h4 e4 52. h5 e3 53. Rh8 Nf3+ 54. Kg2 Nfg5 55. Rc8+ Kd4 56. Rxc2
Nf4+ 57.
Kf1 Kd3 58. Ra2 Nf3 59. Ra3+ Kd2 60. Ra2+ Kd3 61. g7 Nd2+ 62. Ke1 Nf3+
63.
Kd1 Nd5 64. Ra3+ 1-0

[Event "United States Championship 2003 Women's Playoff"]
[Site "SEATTLE USA"]
[Date "2003.01.19"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Shahade,J"]
[Black "Hahn,A"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteTitle "WIM"]
[WhiteElo "2330"]
[WhiteCountry "USA"]
[WhiteTime "00:00:05"]
[BlackTitle "WIM"]
[BlackElo "2219"]
[BlackCountry "USA"]
[BlackTime "00:02:37"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Qd2
h6 8.
Bxf6 gxf6 9. O-O-O a6 10. Kb1 Bd7 11. f4 Qb6 12. Nf3 O-O-O 13. Bd3 Kb8
14.
Rhf1 h5 15. Ne2 Be8 16. f5 Qc5 17. Qe1 Rc8 18. Nf4 Ne5 19. fxe6 Nxd3
20.
cxd3 Qc2+ 21. Ka1 Bh6 22. g3 fxe6 23. Nd4 Qa4 24. Nfxe6 Bd7 25. Rf5
Be3 26.
Ra5 Qxd1+ 27. Qxd1 Rc1+ 28. Qxc1 Bxc1 29. Rf5 h4 30. g4 h3 31. Rxf6
Rg8 32.
Rf8+ Rxf8 33. Nxf8 Bxg4 34. Ng6 Be3 35. Nf5 Bg1 36. Nh6 Bc8 37. Nf4
Bxh2 38.
Nxh3 Bxh3 39. Nf5 Bxf5 40. exf5 Be5 41. Kb1 Kc7 42. Kc2 Kc6 0-1

[Event "United States Championship 2003 Women's Playoff"]
[Site "SEATTLE USA"]
[Date "2003.01.19"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Krush,I"]
[Black "Shahade,J"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteTitle "WGM"]
[WhiteElo "2433"]
[WhiteCountry "USA"]
[BlackTitle "WIM"]
[BlackElo "2330"]
[BlackCountry "USA"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. f3 c5 4. d5 d6 5. e4 e6 6. Nc3 exd5 7. cxd5 Bg7
8. Be3
O-O 9. h4 a6 10. a4 Qa5 11. Qd2 Re8 12. g4 Bxg4 13. fxg4 Nxg4 14. Nge2
b5
15. Bg2 Nd7 16. O-O b4 17. Nd1 Nde5 18. Bf4 Qd8 19. Bg5 f6 20. Bf4 f5
21.
Bg5 Qd7 22. exf5 gxf5 23. Rc1 h6 24. Bf4 Qxa4 25. Nf2 Qb5 26. Nxg4
fxg4 27.
Ng3 Nc4 28. Qc2 Ne3 29. Qg6 Qd7 30. Bxe3 Rxe3 31. Nf5 Re2 32. Nxh6+
Kh8 33.
Rf7 1-0

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:33:54 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

A chess master who is friends with the participants has just related
the following story:

Amazing how Sloan always finds a story-telling chessmaster whenever he needs
to libel someone. Someone page Philsy Innes, his model for chess journalism
has spoken....

Neil Brennen
--
Some people, such as George Mirijanian and Larry Parr who are grown men and
ought to know better, continually defend Sam Sloan. In fact, Sam Sloan is a
pathological liar, and a blight on the chess world. Mirijanian and Parr
should be ashamed.
-Tim Hanke

Dear Neil,

Heil Dubya!

I have not interpreted george Mirijanian's posting concerning Scam Spam as
continually defending him. If I emember correctly, Mr. Mirijanian simply is
taking the Voltairian position the, "I will defend with my life" your right to
display your assininity in public or words to that effect. But Mr. Mirijanian
has not posted concerning Scam Spam in so long that I may have forgotten his
true meaning(s). (And then, there's the confounded fact that I am getting old
an dotty.)

(I realize that you are quoting Tim Hanke, but I assume that your quotation
implies agreement with Hanke. I go along with him in his labeling Scam Spam a
pathological liar, but disagree with him concerning Mirijania's "defenses".

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan, Irak und Haïti. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(The more information that comes out about the attacks on the Twin Towers and
the Pentagon of 11 September 2001 the more it appears that those attacks were
organized by the rulers of the United States and were intended to have the same
effect on the people of the United States that the Reichstag fire had on the
people of Germany in 1933.)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

Subject: Story I heard about 2003 US Women's Playoff

On 25 March 2004 ospam (Jerome Bibuld) replied in
Message-id:

Dear Neil,

Heil Dubya!

I have not interpreted george Mirijanian's posting concerning Scam Spam as
continually defending him. If I emember correctly, Mr. Mirijanian simply is
taking the Voltairian position the, "I will defend with my life" your right
to
display your assininity in public or words to that effect. But Mr.
Mirijanian
has not posted concerning Scam Spam in so long that I may have forgotten his
true meaning(s). (And then, there's the confounded fact that I am getting
old
an dotty.)

(I realize that you are quoting Tim Hanke, but I assume that your quotation
implies agreement with Hanke. I go along with him in his labeling Scam Spam
a
pathological liar, but disagree with him concerning Mirijania's "defenses".

-snipped-

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus


Bibuld's assessment of my opinion of "Scam Spam" is correct. The individual
in question can be both a pathological liar and a chess journalist. Brennen
acknowledges the former but denies the latter.

"I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you
to continue to write."
[In a letter from Voltaire to M. le Riche, Feb. 6, 1770]

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!"
--Sir Walter Scott (in Marmion)

George Mirijanian

Sam Sloan wrote:
However, Anna is rated more than 200 points below Irina Krush and more
than 150 points below Jennifer Shahade. According to statistics, her
chance of beating Irina is less than 25% (not counting draws) and her
chance of beating Jennifer is less than 37.5 % (not counting draws).
Thus, her chance of winning both games was less than 9%.

You're assuming that the two events (Hahn beating Krush and Hahn beating
Shahade) are independent. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption --
Hahn's satisfaction at winning the first game would give her a boost in
the second and the psychological factors that helped her win the first
game would still help with the second.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Cyber-Goldfish (TM): it's like a fish
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that exists only in your computer!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Sam Sloan wrote:
However, Anna is rated more than 200 points below Irina Krush and more
than 150 points below Jennifer Shahade. According to statistics, her
chance of beating Irina is less than 25% (not counting draws) and her
chance of beating Jennifer is less than 37.5 % (not counting draws).
Thus, her chance of winning both games was less than 9%.

You're assuming that the two events (Hahn beating Krush and Hahn beating
Shahade) are independent. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption --
Hahn's satisfaction at winning the first game would give her a boost in
the second and the psychological factors that helped her win the first
game would still help with the second.

Sloan isn't assuming anything. Instead, he's just libeling Ms. Hahn, and if
he can trash Ms. Krush and Ms. Shahade while libeling Ms. Hahn, all the
better in his sick mind. We are talking about a person who called Ms.
Shahade a "floozy", remember.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:53:01 GMT, "Neil Brennen"
wrote:


We are talking about a person who called Ms. Shahade a "floozy", remember.

Another typical lie by Neil Brennen. I have known Jennifer Shahade for
nine years and I never called her a floozy.

Won't you ever stop lying.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
"Neil Brennen" wrote:
We are talking about a person who called Ms. Shahade a "floozy", remember.

Another typical lie by Neil Brennen. I have known Jennifer Shahade for
nine years and I never called her a floozy.

Googling for `"sam sloan" floozy' or `Shahade floozy' (or any variant
spelling) doesn't turn up any hits except for people accusing Sam of using
the term. That includes Google Groups.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Gnome (TM): it's like a smiling
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ garden ornament but it's genuinely
erotic!