Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 07:36 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

I was skeptical but I have to admit that the US Chess Championship,
which concludes today in San Diego, was a great success.

Throughout the tournament I checked in several times every day to keep
up with the games and the results, and I rarely do that any more.

Under the old system of a 16-player round robin with nearly all the
players grandmasters, I rarely looked at the results and in most years
I did not even know who the US Chess Champion was.

However, under the new system with a dual 64-player Swiss, there is
always something interesting going on.

This year, the great sensation of the tournament was completely
unexpected. A previously unknown 19 year old Mongolian girl with
unpronounceable name and low rating ran away with the early rounds of
the tournament, defeating three top grandmasters and drawing another
grandmaster, so that by round five she had scored 3.5 - 1.5 against
opposition averaging 2612, so she had a performance rating of 2782, or
a world championship performance.

Batchimeg Tuvshintugs (nice name, eh!) rated 2271 started the
tournament with a bang, defeating Grandmaster Alexander Fishbein
(rated 2593) who ultimately finished fourth. Batchimeg Tuvshintugs
then lost to Grandmaster Yury Shulman (2623) who won the trournament,
defeated Grandmaster Boris Kreiman (2535), drew Grandmaster Boris
Gulko (2678) and then defeated Grandmaster Julio Becerra (2629).

Sadly, she then lost all the rest of her games. However, this was
nothing to be ashamed of since all of her opponents were strong
players, including Kamsky, rated 2729.

So, the result was that poor Batchimeg Tuvshintugs did not even win
the womans prize. However, this is a well known consequents. Anytime a
low rated player goes to an early lead, they get bombed out by having
to face the strongest players in the tournament, whereas high rated
players who start badly usually get easy opponents enabling them to
catch up.

In this tournament, defending champion Hikura Nakamura had a
disastrous start losing his first round game and scoring only one draw
in his first three games against low rated opposition.

However, Nakamura them came back, winning five games in a row.

Thus, in the last round, Nakamura could have tied for first by beating
Grandmaster Alexander Onischuk, who had led the tournament throughout.
However, Nakamura had black and Onischuk only needed a draw to clench
clear first place.

Namakura played a Benoni Defense and the result was a wild game. I
thought that Nakamura was winning. I am not really sure what happened.
Too complicated. The end result was a draw by perpetual check.

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 13. h3 was the only
way to keep the game going. Otherwise, Kreiman was going to open his
position like a can of sardines.

The USCF Executive Board debated this issue and decided after a vote
to let Kreiman play, so it would be interesting to see how he would
do.

The dress code prevented Kreiman from wearing his signature attire,
which is a skimpy body-hugging shirt showing off his bulging
steroid-enhanced muscles.

Kreiman scored 5-4 and finished in 13th place. He finished the
tournament by defeating Grandmaster Becerra and drawing grandmasters
Kaidanov (2722), Shabalov (2665), Ivanov (2657) and Gulko (2678).
Clearly he belonged in the tournament.

There were two players who did not belong in the tournament. In an
effort to make the tournament more attractive to sponsors, slots had
been set aside for women. However, one woman qualified by being the
ONLY WOMAN to pay the $75 qualification fee. As a result, she got in
even though her rating was only 1663, which ranks her below about
100,000 male chess players. Predictably, she lost ALL nine of her
games.

Another low rated woman also got in, rated 1872. She lost eight games
and got one draw against one of the other female players. The rules
will have to be changed to prevent such weak players from getting into
the US Championship. Indeed, the rules have already been changed.

There were a few more flaws in this tournament. For one, the lack of
publicity. At a very minimum, the photo of Batchimeg Tuvshintugs
should have appeared on the cover of PEOPLE magazine. These
opportunities only happen once in a lifetime. The USCF blew it.

I remember a similar case. In the 1996 US Open, Jennie Frenklakh, aged
15, scored a fantastic, sensational result by leading the tournament
after five rounds with 5-0, after defeating three masters.

Nobody bothered to inform the newspapers of this incredible
achievement.

Three rounds later, somebody finally got the bright idea to call the
newspapers and, as a result, the San Francisco Chronicle did publish a
large photo of Jennie Frenklakh on the front page, but without
mentioning her chess result, because by then Jennie had lost all the
rest of her games.

We had this chance with Batchimeg Tuvshintugs, but now you can forget
about it.

One good thing: The two most beautiful women in the tournament won
first prize in their respective sections, so whomever wins the playoff
today, we will have a beautiful woman as our champion. This is
important, because if we want to interest girls in playing chess, we
need to have a suitable role model for them to look up to.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 07:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2006
Posts: 23
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

Do you want to **** her too?

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 08:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

Sam Sloan wrote:

Nice post, and the ending:

One good thing: The two most beautiful women in the tournament won
first prize in their respective sections, so whomever wins the playoff
today, we will have a beautiful woman as our champion. This is
important, because if we want to interest girls in playing chess, we
need to have a suitable role model for them to look up to.


makes you ... :-)

Nice again.

************
Wlod

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 10:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 131
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

Did you are to your knowledge your double threaten to kill me on this
newsgroup?

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE

  #5   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 11:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2006
Posts: 3
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

Hey Marcus,

Who taught you english?

Regards,

CF.

p.s. Do us all a favor and drop dead.


"Ambassador" wrote in message
oups.com...
Did you are to your knowledge your double threaten to kill me on this
newsgroup?

Marcus Roberts
Permanent Delegate of St Kitts and Nevis to FIDE





  #6   Report Post  
Old March 12th 06, 11:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 131
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

AGAIN, DID YOU THREATEN TO KILL ME.

Marcus Roberts

  #7   Report Post  
Old March 13th 06, 02:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

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
, [email protected] 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
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 13th 06, 04:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2005
Posts: 589
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success


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.


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 13th 06, 07:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 281
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

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

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 13th 06, 07:14 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,soc.culture.mongolian
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 281
Default U.S. Chess Championship a Great Success

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

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 23rd 06 05:24 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 19th 06 05:44 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 19th 06 06:15 AM
Computer Chess; Chess Books Sanford rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 December 6th 05 08:34 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 4th 05 05:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017