Held in St. Louis, MO 15-27 Apr 2011.
Player: Camilla Baginskaite
| page 1 of 1; 7 games
TIP: You can make the above ads go away by registering a free account!
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Apr-27-11|| ||turbo231: A very complicated end game, it always is when you have a knight involved. I wouldn't have agreed to a draw if I were black, black can't lose, so why not play on and see if Anna makes a mistake?|
Nothing to lose and everything to gain. I like those odds, a big mistake by the young lady? I think so, and I bet Anna was very happy, I know I would have been. Show me that you wont make a mistake!
|Apr-27-11|| ||hungry hippo: <turbo> there was a forced draw anyways. 70..B3 71 Nd4 and the pawn is lost and the king gets to the other pawn.|
|Apr-28-11|| ||turbo231: You're right it was a dead draw.|
|Apr-28-11|| ||BLarsen1967: <bharatiy> Why I brought cricket into the discussion: If we look at the national teams,in test cricket India is clearly best with 128 rating points,Australia is placed only 5th with 107 rp,but in ODI cricket (one-day-international) Australia tops with 128 rp - moving to T20 cricket,in that format actually England are the current champions.
I think these facts reflect why they're never mixing the diff. formats in cricket,the 3 different formats are treated as 3 different sports,like,most nations are not even allowed to play test cricket.
So why not have a similar system in the chess world? We all know from own experience that playing a classical game is very very different from playing a 25m rapid or even a blitz game - and it really pains me a lot when seeing a fantastic player like Irina Krush blunder like a 1650 player in a way she'd never do under normal circumstances,to me that's not 'exciting' at all,it's just sad|
|Apr-28-11|| ||drnooo: The main reason I am against ANY kind of forced stupidity such as tiebreaks, rapids or otherwise, is there is no real good reason to do so. OK. Now we are down to two. Let the others go home.
Enough money is usually on the line for an extra day or even a week to decide the outcome in classical chess. Its hardly as if you have an entire team waiting around, suitcases packed.
Two guys doing what they apparently can do little else, play chess. They might even enjoy the layover, the hotel, whatever.
As for rapid or blitz championship, having a classical tournament decided in such idiocy is only because we have gotten used it. Just as we now hve gotten used to world championship matches decided in ten or twelve games. But if that's what floats your boat, fine by me, just don't spit on my neck and tell me the fog is rolling in.|
|Apr-28-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: The games from the fourth-place playoff, the semifinals and finals do not seem to be accessible through this page. Are they currently available anywhere on the CG site?|
|Apr-28-11|| ||beenthere240: I felt terrible for Krush, but then I figured, it's just life. If that's the way these tournaments are settled, you just have to learn how to win that type of game as well. This tournament just happened to have a big payday, so it's tough to skip.|
|Apr-28-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <and it really pains me a lot when seeing a fantastic player like Irina Krush blunder like a 1650 player in a way she'd never do under normal circumstances>|
I Krush vs S Foisor, 2011 hmmmm
|Apr-28-11|| ||researchj: Brava Anna!|
|Apr-28-11|| ||turbo231: Black has too much advantage in a Armageddon game. I wonder what's the winning percentage in these games. Of course a draw is a win for black. |
I think they should have set the schedule so the finals would have been played on a weekend instead of a weekday.
Congratulations to Anna on a job well done!
|Apr-28-11|| ||hellopolgar: <Black has too much advantage in a Armageddon game.>|
Shankland just beat Hess as white in an Armageddon game.
S Shankland vs R Hess, 2011
|Apr-28-11|| ||kevinatcausa: <turbo231: Black has too much advantage in a Armageddon game>|
If the percentage in this bidding format is in favor of black, then the players aren't yet bidding optimally (they're not bidding low enough times).
|Apr-28-11|| ||Wood Mover: Gee what a lame outcome. Rules are rules, but lame rules can lead to lame outcomes...|
So Irina won the classical component outright. But despite no tie, the rules still dictate some sort of rapid play off which can lead to armageddon.
Its a bit like holding a 4 day golf tournament and despite the fact the leader at the end of the final day's play won by 10 shots, they are forced to a play off against 2nd & 3rd, in an elimination hole at the 18th.
Or a world cup football tournament. Spain just won the final against the Netherlands. Now it goes to the elimination penalty shoot out round against Netherlands to determine the champion.
One would expect such a prestigious tournament would deserve better rules.
|Apr-28-11|| ||hungry hippo: <wood> it's more like baseball actually.|
|Apr-29-11|| ||beenthere240: The baseball analogy is great! They should model the MLB playoff on the US chess model-- 3 inning playoff games where each side has 4 outs. Two strikes and you're out, and 3 balls is a walk. Oh and the center fielder has to wear a patch on one eye.|
|Apr-29-11|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <So Irina won the classical component outright. But despite no tie, the rules still dictate some sort of rapid play off which can lead to armageddon.>|
|Apr-29-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: The deciding knock-out phase seems especially unfair in the Women's championship because there was only one tournament (single round-robin) in the preliminary phase (as compared to two groups playing two separate tournaments in the open section). Thus, among the women, every player faced every other player in the preliminary stage.|
Krush was decisively best in that (the preliminary) phase (notwithstanding losing in the first round on a mind-boggling blunder) involving <seven> regular games by each player. In the knock-out phase, she had just <two> games at a regular time control to establish her right to advance against skin-of-her-teeth semi-finalist Zatonskih. When the two regular games yielded a 1-1 score, it went to two rapid games, followed by Armageddon. I realize there are cost and schedule constraints, but a two-game match is really rather ridiculous. Even the four- and six- game knock-out matches upcoming for world championship candidates in Kazan, Russia are too short to be meaningful. A friend recently said that eight games (at regular time controls) should be the minimum duration for a match before resorting to tie-breaks, and I would be inclined to say twelve (and certainly, there should be more than 12 in a World Championship match, recent precedents notwithstanding).
|Apr-29-11|| ||HeMateMe: ...Good point. A double or triple round robin, for a small number of players, is more than enough. The goal is to beat the majority, not a single individual.|
Otherwise, why even have a tournament? Just make it a series of knockout matches.
|Apr-29-11|| ||BLarsen1967: No matter how we look at it,the fact remains that the Women's Champ. was finally determined by an armageddon - and this is outright unacceptable ! - If it was truly acceptable,then why are rapid games and armageddons never rated?? -- and I dont mean to say here,that Anna Zatonskih didnt deserve the title,I believe she did|
|Apr-30-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: Since the CG site does not have a page that collects the games from the knock-out stage of the women’s championship, here are some collected links:|
<2011 U. S. Women’s Chess Championship - Final>
<Zatonskih vs. Abrahamyan>
Game #1: T Abrahamyan vs A Zatonskih, 2011
Game #2: A Zatonskih vs T Abrahamyan, 2011
Rapid #1: T Abrahamyan vs A Zatonskih, 2011
Rapid #2: A Zatonskih vs T Abrahamyan, 2011
Armageddon: T Abrahamyan vs A Zatonskih, 2011
|Apr-30-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Semi-final Match>
<Zatonskih vs. Krush>
Game #1: A Zatonskih vs I Krush, 2011
Game #2: I Krush vs A Zatonskih, 2011
Rapid #1: I Krush vs A Zatonskih, 2011
Rapid #2: A Zatonskih vs I Krush, 2011
Armageddon: I Krush vs A Zatonskih, 2011
|Apr-30-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Semi-final Match>
<Abrahamyan vs. Baginskaite>
Game #1: T Abrahamyan vs C Baginskaite, 2011
Game #2: C Baginskaite vs T Abrahamyan, 2011
Rapid #1: T Abrahamyan vs C Baginskaite, 2011
Rapid #2: C Baginskaite vs T Abrahamyan, 2011
|Apr-30-11|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Third-place Match>|
<Krush vs. Baginskaite>
Game #1: C Baginskaite vs I Krush, 2011
Game #2: I Krush vs C Baginskaite, 2011
<Fourth-Place (Preliminary Stage) Playoff>
<Zatonskih vs. Foisor>
Game #1: S Foisor vs A Zatonskih, 2011
Game #2: A Zatonskih vs S Foisor, 2011
|May-05-11|| ||minasina: Good job <Peligroso Patzer>.|
|Apr-04-12|| ||gauer: Looks like their club is hosting http://saintlouischessclub.org/2012... - which starts next week for potential entry into the new leg - if the bookie seems inclined to offer coverage.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
- No personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No posting personal information of members.
See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.
NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific tournament and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.|
your profile |
Premium Membership |
Kibitzer's Café |
Biographer's Bistro |
new kibitzing |
Tournament Index |
Player Directory |
Notable Games |
World Chess Championships |
Opening Explorer |
Guess the Move |
Game Collections |
ChessBookie Game |
Chessgames Challenge |
privacy notice |
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC