I had the pleasure of talking with Mig at the tournament. I think it was
Saturday evening when he stopped to check the facts concerning something that
occured that evening. I don't know how strong he is, but he did mention not
having played in six years. I strongly believe that almost anyone who has been
inactive in serious chess for that long would have difficulty in their first
event, especially when considering the fact he played in the open section of
the World Open.

Mig is in a position where he is damned what ever he does. If he claims the
2300 rating and does poorly, see how he is attacked. If he did not claim the
rating and played in a lower section, and won money, he would still be
attacked. I hope he continues to play serious chess and perhaps everyone can
debate his skill after he has played several serious events.

A side note, the incident concerned two GMs who aggreed to a draw before the
round started. I heard that one stated he was not feeling well. Carol Jarecki -
frequently much maligned on this NG - scored the result as a double forfeit.
This resulted in both players appearing on the tournament floor and playing for
about 20-30 minuted before agreeing to a draw. Kudos to Carol for enforcing the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players. I have the highest
praise for a journalist who approaches the officials at an event to doublecheck
the facts.

In article , (Sam
Sloan) wrote:

I doubt that he got a 2300 rating in Argentina from playing in chess
tournaments. There are a lot of FIDE rated tournaments in Argentina
and if Mig had been that strong he would have a FIDE rating. It is
much more likely that he got that rating (assuming that he really has
one) just the same way that he got that rating on the Wall Chart of
the World Open: By saying that that was his rating.

There are many people who are good writers and there are many people
who are strong chess players, but there is just about nobody who is
both a very good writer and a very good chess player. Mig is clearly a
good writer. It would be surprising if he were a strong chess player
as well.


Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

On 10 Jul 2003 10:25:29 GMT, ojunk (Ernest W.
Schlich) wrote:

I had the pleasure of talking with Mig at the tournament. I think it was
Saturday evening when he stopped to check the facts concerning something that
occured that evening. I don't know how strong he is, but he did mention not
having played in six years. I strongly believe that almost anyone who has been
inactive in serious chess for that long would have difficulty in their first
event, especially when considering the fact he played in the open section of
the World Open.

Mig is in a position where he is damned what ever he does. If he claims the
2300 rating and does poorly, see how he is attacked. If he did not claim the
rating and played in a lower section, and won money, he would still be
attacked. I hope he continues to play serious chess and perhaps everyone can
debate his skill after he has played several serious events.

You ignore the point that Mig has a USCF rating from 1996 of 1743.
http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12525629

Nobody would object to him playing under that rating. However, he does
not want anybody to know that his real rating is so low, so he claims
a 2300 rating.

Note that he contradicts himself. He says that he is out of practice
because he has not played in 6 years. However, six years ago his
rating was 1743.
http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12525629

A side note, the incident concerned two GMs who aggreed to a draw before the
round started. I heard that one stated he was not feeling well. Carol Jarecki -
frequently much maligned on this NG - scored the result as a double forfeit.
This resulted in both players appearing on the tournament floor and playing for
about 20-30 minuted before agreeing to a draw. Kudos to Carol for enforcing the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players. I have the highest
praise for a journalist who approaches the officials at an event to doublecheck
the facts.

Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Thank you for explaining this controversial incident. I think that
this subject merits some discussion.

Sam Sloan

A side note, the incident concerned two GMs who aggreed to a draw before the
round started. I heard that one stated he was not feeling well. Carol Jarecki
-
frequently much maligned on this NG - scored the result as a double forfeit.
This resulted in both players
appearing on the tournament floor and playing for
about 20-30 minuted before agreeing to a draw. Kudos to Carol for enforcing
the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players.

Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Ernie,
Kudos???
Are you kidding us?
Is there supposed to be some kind of lesson here?

Let's see if I completely understand.
Two titled players agree to a draw prior to the play of the game.
Carol scores the game as a double forfeit.

Carol rescinds the double forfeit and then the two titled players are allowed
to "play" the game and produce the same result 20 minutes later.

Jarecki accepts this result.
You must be kidding.

Richard Peterson

(ASCACHESS) wrote in message ...
A side note, the incident concerned two GMs who aggreed to a draw before the
round started. I heard that one stated he was not feeling well. Carol Jarecki
-
frequently much maligned on this NG - scored the result as a double forfeit.
This resulted in both players
appearing on the tournament floor and playing for
about 20-30 minuted before agreeing to a draw. Kudos to Carol for enforcing
the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players.

Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Ernie,
Kudos???
Are you kidding us?
Is there supposed to be some kind of lesson here?

Let's see if I completely understand.
Two titled players agree to a draw prior to the play of the game.
Carol scores the game as a double forfeit.

Carol rescinds the double forfeit and then the two titled players are allowed
to "play" the game and produce the same result 20 minutes later.

Jarecki accepts this result.
You must be kidding.

Richard Peterson
_________________________________

What Would you have done Rp? (WWRPD?)

KidDon

(WWRPD?)

What does that mean?

What Would you have done Rp?

Carol's solution was the Red Management answer.
If this had been two kids that she didn't know, there is no question she would
have stayed with the double forfeit.
However, the rules don't apply in Red Management.

The whole idea of giving kudos to Carol for allowing the titled players to
cheat (with a different interval) is just one more example of where I would
part company with the powers that be.

Rp

(ASCACHESS) wrote in message ...
A side note, the incident concerned two GMs who aggreed to a draw before the
round started. I heard that one stated he was not feeling well. Carol Jarecki
-
frequently much maligned on this NG - scored the result as a double forfeit.
This resulted in both players
appearing on the tournament floor and playing for
about 20-30 minuted before agreeing to a draw. Kudos to Carol for enforcing
the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players.

Regards, Ernie
Ernest W. Schlich

Ernie,
Kudos???
Are you kidding us?
Is there supposed to be some kind of lesson here?

Let's see if I completely understand.
Two titled players agree to a draw prior to the play of the game.
Carol scores the game as a double forfeit.

Carol rescinds the double forfeit and then the two titled players are allowed
to "play" the game and produce the same result 20 minutes later.

Jarecki accepts this result.
You must be kidding.

Richard Peterson



Setting aside personal and political grudges, this is an interesting
question: should such 'non-games' be allowed, and if so, should they
be rated?

It happens to players at all levels in big money events. I played one
such 'game' in 23 years of tournament play. It was the last round of
the 1998 N.Y. Open, I had 5 out of 8, as did my opponent, and the
consolation prize fund dictated that a loss for either of us meant no
prize at all, while a win or a draw--didn't matter which one--meant
about $230. (All players with +2 or better got at least their entry
fee back.)

No guessing; it was a mathematical certainty. The money meant much
more to me then than it would now, and I am very far from being rich.

I had also just lost a long draining agonizing game in round 7, which
started at 9 that morning, ruining my chances for a decent prize and a
very good result, and just wanted out of there. My opponent seemed to
feel the same way.

We played a six-move draw. And our game was nowhere near the first to
finish that round. I didn't see any games that were literally
non-played, but I'm sure there were a few....

I didn't feel very good about it at the time, and I haven't done it
before or since, but under those exact circumstances, I'd probably do
the same thing again.

I remember reading a LOC in Chess Life many years ago from a
Delegate--it might have been Harold Strenzel?!?--who sponsored a DM to
allow such 'games' to count in tournament standings, but not allow
them to be rated. As I recall, the motion failed, and the
letter-writer seemed pretty frustrated about it.

Was there a discernible difference between the bogus six moves I
played at the N.Y. Open and what the GMs in Philly tried to pull off
last week? I'd like to think so, but I could argue either side of the
debate.

Is it better to be honest and shake hands across an untouched board
rather than agree in advance--tacitly or otherwise--to split the point
and then go through the Kabuki dance for a few moves?

Should the double forfeit have stood in the World Open non-game? Would
it have made a difference if it were a privately sponsored R-R at the
very highest level instead of an open, entry fee-driven Swiss? How
long, in time and number of moves, was the shortest last round game at
the last U.S. Championship?

Interesting questions. I'm not sure I have good answers. I will say
I'm very glad I'll never have to worry about making my meager living
from chess.

If Jarecki went so far as to write 0F-0F on the pairing sheet, I'm not
sure that decision can be rescinded; then again, who would appeal?....

Regards,

Eric M

(Eric Mark) writes:
Setting aside personal and political grudges, this is an interesting
question: should such 'non-games' be allowed, and if so, should they
be rated?

IMO such games should be allowed and rated if they are not
prearranged. Sizing up the opponent and using psychology is part of
the game. If you bluff your opponent with an unsound sac and win,
it's valid and gets rated. You scored based on what your opponent
thought you could do. If you steer away from a complicated tactical
game by offering an early draw because you're tired, your opponent
will not take it if he thinks he can beat you, so his accepting it
also means you score based on what he decides with the clock ticking,
so it is ok. If he decides before the clock starts, that's
prearrangement. If the prearrangement happens the night before, it
means he doesn't even have to prepare for the game, saving strength
for the next round (if there is one). That should not be allowed.

I had also just lost a long draining agonizing game in round 7, which
started at 9 that morning, ruining my chances for a decent prize and a
very good result, and just wanted out of there. My opponent seemed to
feel the same way.

We played a six-move draw. And our game was nowhere near the first to
finish that round. I didn't see any games that were literally
non-played, but I'm sure there were a few....
...
Was there a discernible difference between the bogus six moves I
played at the N.Y. Open and what the GMs in Philly tried to pull off
last week? I'd like to think so, but I could argue either side of the
debate.

Yes, there is a difference. Your six moves were not bogus. You
didn't know what your opponent would do. He could have made you slug
it out or vice versa. Your six moves were like the bidding round of
contract bridge, and established that neither of you was in the mood,
so you both took a draw.

Is it better to be honest and shake hands across an untouched board
rather than agree in advance--tacitly or otherwise--to split the point
and then go through the Kabuki dance for a few moves?

If you agree in advance to the draw and get caught at it, a double
forfeit should result. Your game was more like the last game of the
first Tal-Botvinnik world championship match. Tal was ahead by 12-9
or so, and needed just a draw to win the match; Botvinnik needed to
win three games in a row to hold the title, which he basically had no
chance of scoring. Tal chose an opening that let Botvinnik have a
quick draw if he wanted an easy out, and that is what happened. But
Tal was also ready for a bloody battle.

Should the double forfeit have stood in the World Open non-game?

Yes.

Would it have made a difference if it were a privately sponsored R-R
at the very highest level instead of an open, entry fee-driven
Swiss?

No.

How long, in time and number of moves, was the shortest last
round game at the last U.S. Championship?

Irrelevant. A six-move draw is legitimate if it wasn't prearranged.

Kudos to Carol for enforcing
the
rules regardless of the fact it concerned titled players.

Regards, Ernie

If Jarecki went so far as to write 0F-0F on the pairing sheet, I'm not
sure that decision can be rescinded; then again, who would appeal?....

Regards,

Eric M

I don't have a horse in the race to decide whether prearranged draws should be
allowed or not.

My point is that Carol is being congratulated for enforcing a rule that she
obviously is NOT enforcing.
She is honored that she is making "titled" players obey the rules when she is
not. Instead, she is allowing a charade with the same result.

Can you imagine what the over/under in Las Vegas on the result of the game
Jarecki made the GMs play?

And as you say, who will appeal?

That this is Red Management's (or at least our other co-parliamentarian's) idea
of ethical enforcement makes one wonder.

Richard Peterson

(ASCACHESS) wrote in message ...
(WWRPD?)

What does that mean?
___________________________
Similar to:

WWJD - What would Jesus do?
WWBFD - What would Bobby Fisher do?
WWRPD - What would Rp do?
_______________________________

What Would you have done Rp?

Carol's solution was the Red Management answer.
If this had been two kids that she didn't know, there is no question she would
have stayed with the double forfeit.
However, the rules don't apply in Red Management.

The whole idea of giving kudos to Carol for allowing the titled players to
cheat (with a different interval) is just one more example of where I would
part company with the powers that be.

Rp
__________________________________
So, what would you have done in the situation where two GM's play for
20 minutes to an obviously pre-arranged draw? Forfeit them both?
That would be a bold move, but maybe what Chess needs.

KidDon

I just don't get where these organizers get off bashing GMs when they're
forcing the GMs to pay entry fee, hotel and all expenses.

John Fernandez