On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 19:36:45 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

Probably every observer had their own favorite player to watch. I
followed the results of Boris Kreiman. The reason: There was a
controversy before the tournament involving Kreiman. Kreiman got in to
the tournament by defeating De Guzman in the last round of the
American Open. Some said that the game had been fixed; that Kreiman (a
professional poker player) had paid De Guzman to dump the game.
However, I studied and analyzed the game and concluded that De Guzman
had simply gotten crushed. According to my analysis, De Guzman was
dead lost by move 13. His sacrifice of a pawn with 14. h3 was the only
way to keep the game going. Otherwise, Kreiman was going to open his
position like a can of sardines.

--- In , jerryhanken@... wrote:

This is for Sam Sloan-----I dont accept your analysis of the disputed
game..Wouldnt YOU make 1300 moves if you set out to hurl a game? Your logic is
bad--of course he :"deserved" to be in the championship. That's not even remotely on
point. Sam, you just had to be there! However your last post on the history
of RGPOL (or whatever its called) was right ON point! I fell down laughing!
Every time I give utterly up on you,. you come up with a gem like that! Go figure
Jerry Hanken

Dear Jerry,

I am happy that you have responded. I contend that De Guzman was
already completely lost by move 13 and the way he played from then on
was his best and only chance. Do you disagree with that??

Now, let us take a look at the position, which you have so
conveniently included on page 28 of your article in the March 2006
issue of Chess Life.

You state, on the previous page of Chess Life, that De Guzman could
have defended with 14. Be1. However, I believe that that loses
quickly. After 14. Be1 Ng5 threatens to win a knight. White is forced
to play 15. Nbd2 but then Black plays e5, which threatens to win the
knight again with e4. Therefore White probably has to play 16. dxe5
but now Black has several moves such as Nc5. Now, for example, 17. Qd1
Nd3 18. Rc2 Nxe5. Now, the white knight on f3 is attacked by four
pieces, but defended by only three and since the knight is pinned to
the queen, it is lost and the game is over.

In this position, White is completely tied up, paralyzed and cannot
move. Black has several different attacking plans. Nobody would want
to try to defend this position against a grandmaster.

If you agree with me on that, then you must be saying that already
before move 13 De Guzman had played so weakly that he must be
deliberately dumping the game.

It was Mike Goodall who has directed many chess tournaments in which
De Guzman played who first told me that this game is typical of the
way that De Guzman plays. Mike Aignar, a master who has often played
rated tournament games against De Guzman, has confirmed that the
opening of this game is typical of De Guzman.

Therefore, I conclude that De Guzman played the way that he usually
plays. He made a mistake by playing this way against a grandmaster.
Kreiman exploited this by quickly gaining a crushing position. De
Guzman sacrificed a pawn as the only way to keep the game going, held
out for as long as he could, and finally resigned when his position
had become completely hopeless.

On which point do you disagree?

Sam Sloan

I think there were many flaws with this format. First, nobody under 2400 has
the slightest chance of winning, so why invite them? I can understand asking
the top 10 or so women to participate, but ideally they should have their
own parallel event.

Second, what is with the two groups, each run as a Swiss? Statistically
speaking a Swiss is difficult enough since everyone plays a different field.
Having two groups magnifies this inequity.

The final, played at G/30, is an abomination. All that work and preparation,
and it all comes down to two one-hour games. It's kind of sad.

There is nothing wrong or non-democratic about inviting the top twelve rated
players to a RR tournament. To make it fair and to lessen the chance of
"gaming" the qualification system through rating manipulation, perhaps the
top eight automatically get in, and the next 32 compete in a preliminary
5-round swiss for the remaining four spots. The qualifier can be held over a
long weekend. A similar system could be set up for the women.

US Chess gets no respect for many reasons. The silly USCh format is only one
of them.

I have to praise their stupid US Championship format because I'm hoping
to get Mig's job next year. If they want a Swiss event, they should
just do one section of 32 players.

Sam Sloan

I have to praise their stupid US Championship format because I'm hoping
to get Mig's job next year. If they want a Swiss event, they should
just do one section of 32 players.

Sam Sloan

I have to praise their stupid US Championship format because I'm hoping
to get Mig's job next year. If they want a Swiss event, they should
just do one section of 32 players.

Sam Sloan