| United States Championship (2010) |
|
Previous edition: US Championship (2009). Next: US Championship (Knock-out) (2011). See also USA Women Championship (2010). "Holding true to form, the top four players in the U.S. Championship, based on their pre-tournament ratings, qualified for the final on Thursday. They will play a mini-tournament amongst themselves, with each player facing each of the other competitors once, to determine a champion. The other 20 players in the championship will continue in their Swiss system tournament for another two rounds. They will essentially be playing for places fifth through twenty-fourth. The four finalists — Hikaru Nakamura, Gata Kamsky, Alexander Onischuk and Yuri Shulman — each scored five points in their first seven games." The New York Times, May 20, 2010.
Kamsky and Shulman finished equal first in the quads. Kamsky won the title after drawing Shulman in the playoff game (Shulman vs Kamsky, 2010) because he had draw odds.
|
|
| page 2 of 5; games 26-50 of 111 |
     |
 |
|
| page 2 of 5; games 26-50 of 111 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 54 OF 55 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| May-26-10 | | MaxxLange: I think that the World Open tiebreak winner got a significant cash bonus, as well as the honors. too. The 2010 US Champs format, with the 4 top Swiss players going into a quad, with one tiebreak game, is pretty clearly a strategy to avoid that kind of situation. |
|
| May-26-10 | | frogbert: <The organizers are trying to make chess exciting for....whom?> i think it's as much about money - the cost of staging extra days of play-offs. and less about "creating excitement". the fans of "real" classical chess mostly prefer classical chess to decide classical events, and i doubt too many have illusions about a great mass audience becoming interested followers simply by speeding up the game. also, deciding a championship by a classical play-off at a later time typically has the disadvantage that you won't get a crowd to be there to follow the excitement. "the crowd" in chess are other chess players, and at least for national championships the "trick" to getting a big crowd to celebrate the eventual winner, is to have a big amateur event alongside the championship. if there are a thousand people present during the real championship, which then goes on to be decided in classical tie-breaks 14 days later, it's a kind of let-down to have 20-30 people present to cheer when you receive the visible sign of your championship title, instead of the possibly 4-500 or more if thing had been decided the same or the next day. like with most things, i don't think there's an easy answer to this dilemma. |
|
| May-26-10 | | onur87: How can I find U.S. Championship Blitz Open games? Thanks... |
|
| May-26-10 | | laskerian: <strifeknot>:
He-he...That is a scathing reply.
I wonder why people always come up with "wonderful" ideas in deciding a chess match nowadays.
Honestly, I am happy that anyone among Kamsky, Shulman and Onischuk becomes US Champion. Please don't ask me about Nakamura - inspite of his great talent - because I might say a thing or two about modesty. I hope in due time he realizes his human flaws so he has a realistic perspective on how to become a top-flight player, in the Kramnik league. |
|
| May-26-10 | | Marmot PFL: Draw odds with a time differential is an interesting experiment, but I would not continue it. The game peters out to equality, and voila, a champion is crowned. A rapid or blitz playoff seems preferable, and at least in the Aronian-Carlsen Candidates playoff produced some very exciting games. |
|
May-26-10
 | | chessgames.com: The tiebreak game has been uploaded here: Y Shulman vs Kamsky, 2010. |
|
| May-26-10 | | kingfu: It might be a flaw when you play e4 against Shulman, the French expert. And get blown away as White in not too many moves. If Nakamura wins that game , he is playing for the Championship, not Shulman. Morozevich played one of his first French defenses against KORCHNOI! Korchnoi played the King's Indian Attack and 1-0. Dear US Championship organizers,
Skip the quad, it sucks. Give the lower rated players a chance. The Round Robin works much better. So what if there are 40 games or more. How about 2 games a day with 2 hours. Let's play chess. Oh, by the way, the tie breaks sucked, too. |
|
| May-26-10 | | slomarko: is there a reason why US can't organize its championship as a normal RR tournament like every other civilized chess nation? what's the point of making this weird time odds game!? |
|
| May-26-10 | | kingfu: slomarko, how dare you throw reason in our faces?
Was it reason that discovered electricity?
Was it reason that discovered democracy?
Was it reason that discovered the Gruenfeld Exchange variation? You would think (or maybe reason) that rationality would be a huge part of chess. Fischer was crazy, OFF THE BOARD! |
|
| May-26-10 | | MrMelad: <Was it reason that discovered electricity?> Actually it was.. No need to be a brainiac to rub some fur with amber, but you do have use reason to notice carefully what happens. |
|
| May-26-10 | | Ragh: So, Gata Kamsky won the US Championship back after 19 years. Impressive! |
|
| May-26-10 | | Appaz: <Was it reason that discovered democracy?> Actually, the Greeks have a copyright on that one. Time to pay the licensing fees, it seems. |
|
| May-26-10 | | turbo231: <onur87: How can I find U. S. Championship Blitz open games? Thanks...> I've been looking for the same thing! I was looking forward to May 24 @8pm CDT for over a week, I love to watch Naka play blitz using my fics GUI. My fics gui has different sounds, sound for a regular, check, capture, and stalemate moves. It also flashes when you are running low on time. But the best feature is it shows the moves one move at a time. Years ago I was a member at icc, but I don't remember too much about them. I'm almost sure that icc and fics played the blitz games live. I remember one thing about icc they also showed the moves one move at a time. And that makes a tremendous difference in your viewing pleasure. I remember fics talking about putting games that were played in archive. So far I can't figure how to access their archives. Chessgames.com should be putting these games in archive later on. But watching the games live is infinitely better that playing them back after the fact. The U S Blitz was on my mind "almost" constantly. Here you have Naka, maybe the greatest blitz player that the world has ever known. So what happened on May 24 @8pm CDT...... old age happened.... I forgot. |
|
| May-26-10 | | mcguigan97: <slomarko: is there a reason why US can't organize its championship as a normal RR tournament like every other civilized chess nation? what's the point of making this weird time odds game!?> The US is expert on what is popular. That contrasts with Europe, which is more expert on elite matters. So no surprise, the US plan (playoff finals, sudden death) is designed for broader appeal, while the chess elites prefer the European approach. |
|
| May-26-10 | | Blunderdome: <HeMateMe>
Well, that's where we keep getting stuck: someone <should> win vs. someone <will> win. |
|
| May-28-10 | | onur87: @turbo231> Thanks for interested. Blitz games are different taste,different excitement. Especially when you see the time flowing. |
|
| May-28-10 | | turbo231: <onur87>
I enjoy chess games in general weather it's standard or blitz. Each format has it's own excitement. I especially like to watch Naka play blitz he's a artistic genius at it. |
|
| May-29-10 | | znsprdx: <turbo231:....Naka, maybe the greatest blitz player that the world has ever known.> Rather far from likely considering: TAL world Blitz Champion 1988 - more than a quarter century after being World Champion....There is just no comparison. Also note Blitz without increments is the most irrational concept...which too many chessplayers seem to still not grasp....I hope you understand why:) Fischer was far from crazy: he promoted the incremental clock and "Transcendental(transformational) Chess. |
|
| May-29-10 | | turbo231: <znsprdx: Tal was better at blitz than Naka is now.... Blitz without increments is the most irrational concept> Thank you for your well written kibitz.
Comparing athletes, chess players etc. from different eras is very difficult. That's why I said maybe. Blitz is different, and you have blitz with and without increments. I don't see anything wrong with testing the quickest minds in chess. And for me watching it live with the proper GUI that shows the moves one move at a time, and with different move sounds is very entertaining. Maybe the reason I enjoy it so much is because I'm not good at it. It amazes me to see them play that fast. Don't get me wrong I love to watch standard chess also! What's wrong with me? |
|
May-29-10
 | | HeMateMe: <Blitz without increments is the most irrational concept> Don't think so. Blitz with a fixed time, preferably, 5 minutes, is chess without a net. It is the most pure test of your chess agility. Increments help a weaker player close the gap. Take an informal poll on ICC, yahoo, ChessDom, or wherever you play blitz--the stronger players will tell you they prefer no increments, it is the truer test of chess skill. |
|
| May-30-10 | | Illogic: Of course. Blitz with increment is a wussified version. And if you don't want to take a poll, just look at what the top players are playing online. Quick games with NO increment, almost without exception. Fischer did promote the use of increment, but wasn't that more in regards to tournament play? |
|
| May-30-10 | | onur87: In chess, Good is good. Rational or irrational.Increment or no increment. It dosnt matter. I think, Naka is the best now, all kind of blitz games. And this isnt to result from luck. Only and simply he plays better other human beings.( At one time, like Fischer and Capa...) |
|
| May-31-10 | | znsprdx: <HeMateMe: Blitz with a fixed time, preferably, 5 minutes, is chess without a net. It is the most pure test of your chess agility.> "agility" ??: it is not a circus - we are talking about "ability" the absolute mental concept of checkmate versus the limitation of delivering it physically. It is absurd to penalize the player who has a forced sequence of 'n' moves with a time forfeit simply because the physical movements use time, that is technically independent of 'chess time'. It becomes a kind of variation of Zeno's Paradox. However the purpose of increments should be to allow for the moves to be made at a point when an opponent fails to understand that it is time to resign. However they should be added by request with only one minute left to the time control and should be no longer than 2 seconds per move. Here is a little composition to illustrate my point:
< 
click for larger view> Black just played ....Re8 Let us presume this is zeitnot: the pieces are flying as White (having the worst of it on the clock) unleashes the shocker 1.Rd8 !? which leads Black to blunder with ...1. Qx[R]d8
2.Qa2+ Kh8 3.Nf7+ Kg8
4.Nx[Q]d8+ Kh8
Now the classic Philidor (smothered) mate continues
5.Nf7+ Kg8 6.Nh6+ Kh8
7.Qg8+ Rx[Q]g8
8.Nf7++
It is just simply nonsense for White to lose on time- the worst penalty perhaps would be a draw - roughly equivalent to the principle of insufficient [chess] material - in this case: insufficient [chess] time.
On the other hand if instead Black tries ...1. Rx[R]d8 the request for increments may perhaps not be as justifiable because the checkmate although inevitable is not a forced sequence. BTW I think Black had to find ...1.c2! 2.Rx[Q]c8 Rx[R]c8 3.Nd3 c1=Q+ 4.Nx[Q]c1 Rx[N]c1+ 5.Kf2
with better odds of White losing on time. Here a request for increments would not at all be justifiable. It is unlikely the Chessworld is bright enough to grasp this nuance given that they haven't even figured out how to assure round robin tournaments at the upper echelons; nor how to resolve the issue of the no-play agreed draw which continues to plague elite Chess, nor how to find a clear winner without resorting to the Armageddon concept which is pure idiocy: may as well just flip a coin. Clearly a Random 360 would be preferable for this purpose: but with 2 games from the same position with simultaneous White side and Black side play:) |
|
| Jun-02-10 | | turbo231: <znsprdx: It's coin flipping time.> Very good points. Flipping a coin is a little extreme, that would be 50, 50. They need skill to win or draw. If they played against me their chance in winning would be 100%, better than flipping a coin. As I said before it takes some skill to win or draw. On the other hand their talent is more or less equal, so for them it would the same as flipping a coin. So because they are equal flipping a coin is not extreme, and makes perfect sense. I was wrong, in my final analysis all your points are very good. |
|
Jun-02-10
 | | alexmagnus: Not exactly. Having draw odds with black lowers white's elo (in terms of expected result) by 110 points. So, the players <objectively> decide how much time are 110 elo points worth to them. Nothing with randomness. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 54 OF 55 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
