< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|May-19-12|| ||kenkur: Interesting that none of the ten players are US-born (or even foreign born but US-developed like for example Nakamura and Seirawan). I'm not knocking immigration but it can't be a good sign for US chess when you have to rely so much on imports. Sort of like if 90% of pro baseball players came from Japan, there would be a lot of concern, I think.|
|May-19-12|| ||kenkur: Oops, I mean 11 players.|
|May-19-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <kenkur: Oops, I mean 11 players.>|
Actually, Viktorija Ni and Viktoria Ni are the same player, so you did mean ten (10) players, after all.
|May-19-12|| ||belgradegambit: Um, Krush arrived in the US at age 6. Can we count her as "US-developed" please?|
|May-19-12|| ||King Death: < belgradegambit: Um, Krush arrived in the US at age 6. Can we count her as "US-developed" please?>|
Let's hear from all sides on this, it's so important, what do the "birthers" think? Should we start to exclude all foreign born people from the US Championship because they started their lives somewhere else? Maybe we can let them play if they came to the US early enough (like it matters). Why not at least discuss something worth talking about? Almost all of us came from somewhere else if you take things back far enough.
|May-20-12|| ||PhilFeeley: <Jason> Clearly, we disagree. I think blitz is a terrible way to decide a championship, either here or at the WCC. I hope it doesn't come down to that, in either case.|
|May-20-12|| ||Chessgames Bookie: Only one hour to go, good luck!
US Women's Championship: Krush-Zatonskih Tiebreaks
|May-20-12|| ||siamesedream: Tie-breaks (2 rapid games 25+5) just started:
|May-20-12|| ||King Death: I don't really care what happened in that playoff a few years ago but I agree with <PhilFeeley> that rapid play after playing long games is no way to decide a champion.|
|May-20-12|| ||random1: Krush just won the first playoff game.|
|May-20-12|| ||chessgames.com: We're grabbing the tiebreak games as soon as they become available. The first one is here A Zatonskih vs I Krush, 2012.|
|May-20-12|| ||Illogic: Irina Krush is the women's US champion!|
|May-20-12|| ||chessgames.com: And here's the other one: I Krush vs A Zatonskih, 2012.|
Congratulations to Irina Krush, the 2012 US Women's Champion!
|May-20-12|| ||siamesedream: And second too... Congrats Irina Krush.|
|May-20-12|| ||AgentRgent: A shame that the championship is decided in such a manner, but congratulations to Irina for regaining the title. |
I was a fan before, but after spending some time speaking with her at the tournament, I'm an even bigger fan of this very gracious young lady!
|May-20-12|| ||Jason Frost: <PhilFeeley: <Jason> Clearly, we disagree. I think blitz is a terrible way to decide a championship, either here or at the WCC. I hope it doesn't come down to that, in either case.>
No, I completely agree that it's a terrible way to decide the championship, but it was one she agreed to. So, her writing the letter, in which she tries to paint Anna as a cheater and claims it an injustice that she lost, was weaselly.But like I said before, that's old history.|
Great tournament by Irina this year and congratulations on the championship.
|May-20-12|| ||AgentRgent: <Jason Frost> The contention of cheating really has nothing to do with the format (aside from the fact that the actions in question likely wouldn't occur except for the format). The question was simply whether it's legal to move your pieces BEFORE your opponent has pressed his/her clock. The regulations are somewhat unclear. (fwiw, I consider it to be illegal)|
|May-20-12|| ||Jason Frost: <AgentRgent: <Jason Frost> The contention of cheating really has nothing to do with the format (aside from the fact that the actions in question likely wouldn't occur except for the format). The question was simply whether it's legal to move your pieces BEFORE your opponent has pressed his/her clock. The regulations are somewhat unclear. (fwiw, I consider it to be illegal)>|
That's not the question at all. Moving on your opponent's time is against the rules. Anna did move on Irina's time, but the rule for reporting issues is that a player must stop the clocks, call over and arbiter, and claim a violation of the rules (whether it be moving pieces on the opponent's time, making an illegal move, not moving a piece that a player touched, etc...). It was clearly a bad format and situation, maybe a bad rule, but that's the rule.
Also, in my opinion the use of the word cheating a bit poor here. Cheating implies intent, and anyone who has played blitz any reasonable number of times will have moved on his opponents time at some point ... as Irina herself did earlier in the tiebreaks.
But, again ..... old history.
|May-20-12|| ||Peligroso Patzer: <Jason Frost: <PhilFeeley: Irina's protest in 2008, and the USCF's weasily reply here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...>|
I think you have that backwards, weasely letter from Irina, logical and correct reply by organizers. Though, of course that's ancient history.>
As you say, itís ancient history, and I hesitate to revisit an old dispute. Nevertheless, I canít refrain from observing that the USCF response relied heavily on the US principle that TDs only intervene to decide protests raised by a player. This is valid for a US event, but the US Championship, despite being the US national championship, is typically contested under FIDE rules.
Where FIDE rules apply, the arbiter has more responsibility to take the initiative (to act <sua sponte>, as it were) when a rule has been violated. For example, Rule 13.1 of the FIDE Laws of Chess reads as follows: ď13.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly
|May-20-12|| ||AgentRgent: Are you suggesting that illegal behavior is only illegal if one is "called" on it? Whether Irina realized it or not, the actions were illegal (presumably) and it is unfair to expect someone, especially in the heat of the moment, to not only think about chess, but whether the opponent is making illegal moves.. |
Furthermore, for the action to have occurred so as often as happened in that game, at least demonstrates disregard for that "rule" if not intent. I would suggest that Anna certainly knew she was doing it and did nothing to stop, where then does that leave any "cheating" allegations?
|May-20-12|| ||belgradegambit: The Womens champ beats the Mens champ
I Krush vs Nakamura, 2001
|May-20-12|| ||Jason Frost: <Peligroso Patzer> Interesting, thought it was played under uscf rules, but if that is in fact the case, then I completely agree. |
<AgentRgent: Are you suggesting that illegal behavior is only illegal if one is "called" on it?>
I'm simply <suggesting> there is a statue of limitations on reporting it, which for most chess violations is during the course of the game).
Of course, if uscf rules were actually being superseded by fide rules there, as <Peligroso Patzer> pointed out, then the arbiters should've probably stepped in.
|May-21-12|| ||whiteshark: There goes my bees and honey...|
|May-22-12|| ||Riverbeast: Let's hear the rap Irina!|
|May-24-12|| ||eternaloptimist: Irina played great chess in this tournament & got through it w/o a loss!! None of the games that she played went over 56 moves (per player)!! This tournament proves that she can play king's pawn openings, queen's pawn openings & the english opening very well w/ the white pieces! This versatility makes her very tough to prepare for. She is at the top of her game now. Anna also played well but irina played a little better.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·