|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 40 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
Apr-28-09
 |
| alexmagnus: As long as on average women play worse, there is nothing sexist about women playing in both championships. If someday women catch up then start talk about sexism. |
 |
| Apr-28-09 |
| Valmy: Hum, this is not the "US MEN CHAMPIONSHIP", but the "US CHAMPIONSHIP", both men and women can play.
There is a special event the "US WOMEN CHAMPIONSHIP" where only women can play, in order to promote chess for women.
That's the way I understand it. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| SetNoEscapeOn: <PhilFeeley>
No, you must be right. Since they had been held concurrently for the past several years I just assumed that it was canceled- thanks.As far as the two females' participation in this event goes, I agree with <Valmy>. It's a non issue. Just like every other player in the field, they qualified. The fact that the male players cannot play in the women's championship is no more relevant than the fact that no participant over 21 years old can play in the US Junior championship. Tyler Hughes qualified by winning the 2008 US Junior championship, and depending on his age he is eligible to play in it again this year, but nobody is talking about age discrimination. He's also significantly lower rated than both Anna and Irina, if that matters. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| parmetd: No, I agree. They should be held at the same time and Anna and Irina should be allowed to pick which they want to play not be allowed both. It is absurd. It basically means both tournaments dates were entirely scheduled around these two women to make sure they were available for both times. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| unsound: Why would you assume that just because K & Z do in fact get to play in both now, that the events were "entirely scheduled around these two women"? Is that based on any actual information, or are you just assuming that because it feels good to get angry about it? Not that I don't often think that way myself. I assume that TDs keep pairing me against talented 11-year olds purely in the hope of utterly humiliating me. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| dumbgai: Heh, the $64000 perfect score jackpot is just to create a stir. The USCF/sponsors are definitely praying that nobody actually gets it. |
|
Apr-28-09
|
| parmetd: the only way someone does is by collusion... a field this strong? |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| dumbgai: There's also a major catch to this: if anybody does get a perfect score they'll automatically be *STRONGLY* suspected of using computer assistance and/or colluding. And if we learned anything from certain other incidents, "proving your innocence" can be just about impossible. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| Jim Bartle: Sounds like a Catch-22: You win $64,000 if you have a perfect score without cheating. But if you have a perfect score we will assume you were cheating. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| tamar: 9-0 would be possible for Kamsky or Nakamura, but it is more likely they flame out trying to get it, and distort their styles. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| monopole2313: I'm pulling for Charles Lawton. He had a strong showing as a junior in the 1970 Ohio Championship, and he drew Kamsky in the 1990 National Open.
Knock 'em dead! |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| Whack8888: Agree with above -- no championship double dipping based on gender! Sort of defeats the purpose of a womens championship -- same with seniors, under ___, amateur etc. These other championships are designed to encourage excellence for people who for whatever reason cant hack it at the top tier -- to allow people who can hack it at the top tier play in the other events is wild -- I thought of a good analogy -- imagine if an 40 year adult who was earning his GED somewhere played in both a High School Championship and a normal championship -- not fair, clearly undermining the purpose of the High School Championship haha, though in that example, maybe you wouldnt want the GED guy to be able to choose anyway and just say, hey man, you arent in High School anymore anyway, this kind of tangential ranting is not healthy -- hopefully there is a fine US championship -- good luck, my fellow Mericans |
|
Apr-28-09
|
| Whack8888: Kamsky or Nakamura could sweep I bet, have to bring their A game and get lucky -- maybe a rising star can sweep as well |
|
Apr-28-09
|
| Whack8888: Another good example -- imagine if I guy was playing in the NBA but still attending college -- would the NCAA allow him to play for the college team still? |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| MaxxLange: I hope Hess makes a run at the title - never mind the 9-0. It's anyone's tournament among the top players, but a dark horse win would be exciting |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| PhilFeeley: For Kamsky or Nakamura to sweep, I'm sure one of them would have to beat the other at some stage. (With 9 rounds and only 24 players, what are the chances they won't meet?) I doubt that will happen. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| chesstoplay: I'd like to see Yury repeat.
His current USCF rating is 2724.
However, Alex O. seems to be in a very, very serious training mode and may be the one this year. |
|
| Apr-28-09 |
| dumbgai: <Whack8888: Another good example -- imagine if I guy was playing in the NBA but still attending college -- would the NCAA allow him to play for the college team still?> That would be against NCAA regulations.
I'm not opposed to allowing women to compete in both the women's and regular championships if they qualified for both properly (which I think is the case here). I mean, Kamsky just nearly qualified to face Anand for the WC and he's playing in his national championship just a few months later. |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| dunkenchess: Let's get it on! |
|
Apr-28-09
|
| parmetd: okay dumbgai i'll buy your argument but for your argument to be true Irina and Anna have to qualify for the mens by being a TOP TEN rated player not just the top 2 rated females. That would mean they qualified for the female tournament.
"20. Zatonskih, Anna 2461 (female, rating)
21. Krush, Irina 2452 (female, rating) " |
|
Apr-28-09
|
| Whack8888: <dumbgai> I will split this into two -- one totally agree with your implication that chess is different from a lot of other stuff, the Kamsky situation is a good counter analogy. Also, they are popular players and so it is good for chess to have them there, also there is practical implications like we want to encourage women to compete in chess and having them compete in both championships will probably best do that two - the flip side though, is it is unfair -- cant really say why, it just is -- it is one of those instances where it is hard to explain, which is why i was trying to use analogies. It is just a matter of having your cake and eating it I guess, which is an odd phrase, because that is what you are supposed to do with cake, but i am using the phrase to imply that you should either have cake or eat cake but not both. ;) |
|
Apr-28-09
 |
| blacksburg: ok, how about this, is it unfair for the USCF to hold a <women's> championship, but not a <men's> championship? also, should there be cake available at these events? if so, should people be allowed to eat it? |
|
| Apr-29-09 |
| dumbgai: I just think that it's important that everybody has the same qualification system. I had assumed that Zatonskih and Krush had qualified into this championship under the normal regulations for all players, although now I'm not sure if they did. I'm opposed to giving preference to certain players on the basis of gender, age, etc. Judit Polgar qualified for the San Luis WC tournament fairly on the basis of her rating, so she should be allowed to compete in that as well as any women's tournaments (if she wanted to, which she never does). However, for example giving the reigning women's world championship an automatic entry into the FIDE world cup is unfair in my opinion. |
|
Apr-29-09
|
| blacksburg: what about the cake? |
|
Apr-29-09
|
| Whack8888: <blacksburg> haha, it is a tragedy of justice that the winner of the championship is not awarded a cake trophy -- come on people! |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 40 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
