chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

TOURNAMENT STANDINGS
US Championship Tournament

Wesley So7/11(+3 -0 =8)[view games]
Alexander Onischuk7/11(+4 -1 =6)[view games]
Fabiano Caruana6.5/11(+4 -2 =5)[view games]
Hikaru Nakamura6.5/11(+3 -1 =7)[view games]
Varuzhan Akobian6.5/11(+4 -2 =5)[view games]
Yaroslav Zherebukh5.5/11(+2 -2 =7)[view games]
Daniel Naroditsky5/11(+1 -2 =8)[view games]
Samuel Shankland5/11(+1 -2 =8)[view games]
Gata Kamsky5/11(+2 -3 =6)[view games]
Ray Robson4.5/11(+2 -4 =5)[view games]
Jeffery Xiong4/11(+1 -4 =6)[view games]
Alexander Shabalov3.5/11(+1 -5 =5)[view games]
*

Chessgames.com Chess Event Description
US Championship (2017)

The 2017 U.S. Championship was a 12 player round-robin with Caruana, So, Nakamura, Robson, Shankland, Xiong, Kamsky, Onischuk, Naroditsky, Akobian, Zherebukh, and Shabalov. Wesley So became US Champion after defeating Onischuk in the rapid tiebreak phase: US Championship (Tiebreak) (2017).

The players competed for USD $194,000 in prize money as well as the coveted title of U.S. Champion. For the 9th consecutive year the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis hosted the championship.

The time control was 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game, plus 30-second increments per move starting from move 1. Agreed draws were not allowed before move 30. (1)

Official site: http://www.uschesschamps.com/2017-u...

(1) chess24: U.S. Championship https://chess24.com/en/watch/live-t...

 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. Shabalov vs S Shankland  ½-½42 2017 US ChampionshipB82 Sicilian, Scheveningen
2. J Xiong vs Y Zherebukh  ½-½26 2017 US ChampionshipE60 King's Indian Defense
3. Nakamura vs Akobian 1-056 2017 US ChampionshipA07 King's Indian Attack
4. Robson vs Caruana 0-140 2017 US ChampionshipC11 French
5. W So vs Shabalov 1-029 2017 US ChampionshipD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
6. Akobian vs J Xiong ½-½68 2017 US ChampionshipD85 Grunfeld
7. Robson vs Nakamura 0-165 2017 US ChampionshipC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
8. Y Zherebukh vs Kamsky ½-½30 2017 US ChampionshipB28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation
9. Onischuk vs D Naroditsky ½-½34 2017 US ChampionshipE20 Nimzo-Indian
10. S Shankland vs Caruana ½-½37 2017 US ChampionshipE32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical
11. D Naroditsky vs Y Zherebukh ½-½66 2017 US ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
12. Shabalov vs Onischuk 0-144 2017 US ChampionshipE06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3
13. J Xiong vs Robson  ½-½30 2017 US ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
14. Kamsky vs Akobian 0-122 2017 US ChampionshipC07 French, Tarrasch
15. Caruana vs Nakamura ½-½58 2017 US ChampionshipB31 Sicilian, Rossolimo Variation
16. S Shankland vs W So ½-½37 2017 US ChampionshipC67 Ruy Lopez
17. Robson vs Kamsky 1-058 2017 US ChampionshipB32 Sicilian
18. Akobian vs D Naroditsky 0-158 2017 US ChampionshipD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
19. Y Zherebukh vs Shabalov 1-049 2017 US ChampionshipA07 King's Indian Attack
20. Onischuk vs S Shankland  ½-½34 2017 US ChampionshipD45 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
21. Nakamura vs J Xiong ½-½31 2017 US ChampionshipC50 Giuoco Piano
22. W So vs Caruana ½-½49 2017 US ChampionshipC67 Ruy Lopez
23. Caruana vs J Xiong ½-½58 2017 US ChampionshipC65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense
24. Shabalov vs Akobian ½-½33 2017 US ChampionshipA13 English
25. D Naroditsky vs Robson  ½-½30 2017 US ChampionshipB90 Sicilian, Najdorf
 page 1 of 3; games 1-25 of 66  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2)  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-15-17  blunderclap: Yoo styoopide wooman!
Apr-15-17  blunderclap: Sorry guys, I thought I had this all figured out, but a fatal flaw has emerged in my calculations. Goedel just told me that he just made that silly theorem of his up to @#$% me in the ass!
Apr-15-17  blunderclap: I didn't see that coming...
Apr-15-17  john barleycorn: < blunderclap: Sorry guys, I thought I had this all figured out, but a fatal flaw has emerged in my calculations. Goedel just told me that he just made that silly theorem of his up to @#$% me in the ass!>

Take it up with <morfishine> since he pulls his *wisdom* out of the same hole.

Apr-15-17  blunderclap: And he even admits that I'm right, I'm close to diarrhea.

Most are seriously unimpressed by this BS, but some leeches still are, so...

Apr-15-17  blunderclap: Hello world
Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<morfishine> Computers do not get "lucky">

They probably don't in the general sense bit, if you remember, I limited the domain to chess engines, not computers in general, and put it in the context of non-determinism and the effect that it has on the alpha-beta algorithm. And it requires that one associates "luck" to some extent with "chance". I agree that this association is somewhat tongue-in-cheek but I don't think that it is entirely inappropriate. There's even, as I just found out, a class of nondeterministic algorithms (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonde... for a very superficial discussion) that even have useful applications.

If you think that having chess engines spit out different move evaluations, rankings, lines, and even different top-5 moves (as I'll discuss in my next, hopefully very brief post, purely by chance does not constitute "luck", the I would be interested in knowing your definition of "luck".

And if quantum computers ever get built, they would surely generate non-deterministic results due to the uncertainty principle operating at the quantum level. But that is still off in the future and certainly an off-topic discussion for this site.

And, BTW, I'm not hung up on the subject, I just think that it's fun to speculate.

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <john barleycorn> I don't necessarily agree that luck is independent of skill and memory. In many games of "chance", the best players can calculate the odds of different outcomes. They would typically play according to the best odds but sometimes they might win even though they're playing against the odds, as when filling an inside straight in poker when your opponent holds 4 aces.

But let me put it in chess terms because <Sally Simpson> and I had a related discussion some time back. In human chess, of course, when you are faced with a clearly losing position, playing for a swindle is certainly understandable. Against a computer this would probably not work, but if a human was playing against a computer (perhaps he was given odds) and happened to find himself in a winning position, wouldn't the computer be justified (assuming that it was programmed to do so) to attempt to swindle his opponent? Chess engines would not typically do this, when faced with all possibilities being losses, they would pick the line that delays the inevitable as long as possible; i.e. the horizon effect as I believe was originally defined.

But let's assume that an engine had been programmed to attempt a swindle when it was in a lost position and its human opponent overlooked his best move and the computer won. Would you in that situation consider that the computer got "lucky"?

Apr-15-17  morfishine: <SirRuthless> Just do us all a favor and STFU

<blunderclap> Just do us all a favor and crawl back under the rock you came from

lol

*****

Apr-15-17  john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <john barleycorn> I don't necessarily agree that luck is independent of skill and memory. In many games of "chance", the best players can calculate the odds of different outcomes. ...>

Yes, calculating all the outcomes is satisfying in a sense. the problem is just to get the *right card* and that is the factor of luck.

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <He's a typical left coast liberal, fixed in his own ideas who will blab on eternally trying to convince you he's correct. He won't acknowledge your viewpoints at all, which is typical of Liberals, and couches his condescending arguments in a veil of self-deprecation>

<Wow! I don't know what I've done to elicit such a strong reaction from you or anyone else. Yes, I am, in general, a liberal and yes, I live in the left (west) coast and yes, I have a self-deprecating style. I would like to think that this is not a veil but evidence that I fortunately don't take myself too seriously, but perhaps>

Agree or disagree sounds like <Morfishine> garnered access to <AylerKupp's> personal profile.

No offence to <AylerKupp> since I find he has some insightful posts, but yes for someone who doesn't take themselves too serious you go on for a loooong time. Your arm is off no it's not... that too.

I find fault with <Morfishine>, your list is compelling, but to leave off the fact that liberals also run to compliment commend and bolster each other uncritically, complain about a single post they deem off topic by those outside of the pack, while allowing those of their own ilk to go on for page after page of verbose off topic nonsense without saying narry a word deserved your mention as well. I didn't notice either so shame on me.

<Best endorsement for <aylerkupp> I've ever read!> Thanks Jim nobody does it better. ;0] and right on cue too, just ring the bell.

Sounds like the Rogoff septictank is full the sewage is backing up here now.

Yes and Happy Resurection weekend to those who it matters too, the rest of you have a good weekend.

Go So!!!

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <...your list is compelling, but to leave off the fact that liberals also run to compliment commend and bolster each other uncritically, complain about a single post they deem off topic by those outside of the pack, while allowing those of their own ilk to go on for page after page of verbose off topic nonsense without saying narry a word deserved your mention as well.>

That describes the rightwing club on Rogoff perfectly.

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <<AK> ... Chess engines would not typically do this, when faced with all possibilities being losses, they would pick the line that delays the inevitable as long as possible; i.e. the horizon effect as I believe was originally defined.>

?? I don't think that's the same "horizon effect" as used in reference to engines.

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: This was a very great US championship, So won a tough battle and Onischuk took it to him, as did Akobian. So just keeps racking up the accolades. I expected a day when Magnus might have someone to potentially challenge him, but So soon it is upon us. Hope you qualify...

Frankly I thought Caruana was going to be the man, and that still might be the case. Who would think the US championship would ever have three world top ten players. Thank you Caruana for coming home, thank you So for making this your home and Nakamura for your chess. How many critics you endured, who said nothing special, not a 2700 not a 2750 and not a 2800. No way a top ten never a top 5 but alas you have broken 2800, took up residence in the top ten, been the worlds highest rated blitz player, highest rated rapid player and world #2 classical all in the very recent times.

I look forward to when your crazy tactical skills gel with you well developed positional game. Oh how the critics have went the way of Elvis.

US chess champion Wesley So!!! Not bad for a poor kid from the Philipines, with a humble attitude and thankful heart.

We are still a land of opportunity thankfully So who is so thankful.

Apr-15-17  morfishine: <Jambow> I will always support you, especially when you are being attacked

US Navy and spec ops always stick together

*****

Apr-15-17  thegoodanarchist: <john barleycorn: < thegoodanarchist: <<AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> Do computers get lucky> Everything, of course, depends on your definition of "luck". ...> Here is what found its way into German jusrisdiction: Luck is independent of skill and memory of the players. and game of luck involves a serious disagreement of its outcome by the players and a "substantial" amount of money is involved.>

Hi Barleycorn. Of course, I was talking about people taking precautions, in case on line dictionaries are hacked by machines. I am not sure that you're replying to that.

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Tiggler: <jambow>:<Sounds like the Rogoff septictank is full the sewage is backing up here now. >

and you can ring the bell for creating this classic post ++. Boinngg

Apr-15-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

In a Human v Computer game if the computer was losing and the best line from a lost position was a swindle attempt then the computer would go for it.

The fact it may have presented the human with a complicated position they blundered and lost or drew then I would call that lucky because the computer did not mean to bamboozle the human. It does not know how to. It was simply playing what it thought was the best move.

Examples are hard to find today because the computers have no need to resort to lucky trickery v humans, they never get lost positions.

But one game from the past.

D Levy vs CHESS 4.7, 1978

Levy (in Total Chess by David Spanier) says he was very surprised by the move here...


click for larger view

55...Nxe7

55...h3+ draws. 55...Nxe7 actually loses but Levy believing the computer had found a way to draw it failed to spot the win that runs:

55...Nxe7
56.dxe7 Rh8
57.Bc3!

Levy played 57.Bd6 Kf6 58.b8=Q RxQ 19.BxR Kxe7


click for larger view

A draw. Lucky in respect the computer blundered turning a draw into a loss and the human trusted it without looking for the flaw.

Apr-16-17  Sularus: congrats to GM So!
Apr-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: OK, this is my last post on chess engine non-determinism, I promise. And I will try to keep it short (no promises!). I ran additional Stockfish 8 analyses on the same position, including some with 2-threads and 3-threads (24 analysis in total) and thought that some would be interested in some general results. If you are not, then this is a good time to skip to the next post.

1. Non-determinism is evident in Stockfish 8 whenever you are running multiple threads, it shows itself when running 2, 3, or 4 threads; only when running a single thread are the results deterministic.

2. The speed-up when running to a search depth = 35 plies is 1.4X for 2-threads over 1-thread, 1.7X for 3-threads over 1-thread, and 2.0X for 4-threads over 1-thread. If you want non-deterministic results, this is the running time penalty that you will be paying.

3. Non-determinism is not restricted to evaluations, move rankings, or lines. In one of the analyses with 2 threads a move not previously indicated as being one of Stockfish's top 5 moves, 14.Qb4, replaced 14.Qb6 as one of the top 5 moves. So don't be surprise if additional moves "sneak in".

4. Evaluations for the same move when running an analysis using the same number of threads can vary quite a lot; the difference between the largest evaluation and the smallest can be similar to the value of the smallest evaluation.

5. But the evaluations, while variable, not surprisingly become much more consistent when you average them. So, the average evaluation for Stockfish's top move, 14.d3, was [+0.32] for the single thread analyses, [+0.33] for the 2-thread analyses, [+0.35] for the 3-thread analyses, and [+0.37] for the 4-thread analyses. Other moves has similar results. So, if you are going to place a lot faith in a multi-core engine analysis, make sure that you run more than one and average them. And, if you are going to do that, it would probably be faster to simply run the analyses using a single thread.

So, good luck with your multi-threaded engine analyses. And use the results wisely.

Apr-16-17  blunderclap: <Aylerkupp>

Fascinating piece of research:)

Apr-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<zanzibar> I don't think that's the same "horizon effect" as used in reference to engines.>

I believe that there are two definitions (at least) of the horizon effect. I describe them here: Stockfish (Computer) (kibitz #115) and shows an example. Hopefully it clarifies my opinion. Let me know what you think.

Apr-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> In a Human v Computer game if the computer was losing and the best line from a lost position was a swindle attempt then the computer would go for it.

I think that we've discussed this before. I don't think that the computer would go for it because it is not likely to be programmed to do so. The reason is what you said, this tactic would not likely work against other computers and computers play humans so infrequently that I didn't think that it would be worthwhile for the computer's programmers to spend the time and effort to incorporate this capability. But, who knows?, some of the engines might have it.

And that's a good example from the past. I broadens the concept of computers getting "lucky". But I think that this would only happen if computers were playing humans, not other computers.

Apr-16-17
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Thanks again AylerKupp for your time and your in depth replies.
Apr-16-17  morfishine: <Sally Simpson> Very nice post on Levy vs Chess 4.7 1978

*****

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 28)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 28 OF 28 ·  Later Kibitzing>
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 login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle 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.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC