| U.S. Championship (2022) |
Name: U.S. Championship
Event Date: October 4-20, 2022
Site: Saint Louis, MO USA
Time Control: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for
the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds (increment)
per move starting from move one
Format: 14-Player Round Robin
|
|
| page 3 of 4; games 51-75 of 91 |
     |
 |
| Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
| 51. C Yoo vs Xiong |
  | 0-1 | 50 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | B12 Caro-Kann Defense |
| 52. So vs Swiercz |
| ½-½ | 40 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C50 Giuoco Piano |
| 53. A Liang vs Shankland |
| ½-½ | 39 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | B53 Sicilian |
| 54. Lenderman vs L Dominguez Perez |
| ½-½ | 38 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3 |
| 55. Aronian vs Niemann |
| ½-½ | 57 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C58 Two Knights |
| 56. E Moradiabadi vs Robson |
| 0-1 | 38 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C65 Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense |
| 57. Robson vs Lenderman |
| ½-½ | 89 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav |
| 58. L Dominguez Perez vs Sevian |
| ½-½ | 113 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C83 Ruy Lopez, Open |
| 59. Caruana vs A Liang |
| ½-½ | 77 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C42 Petrov Defense |
| 60. Xiong vs Aronian |
| ½-½ | 28 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C45 Scotch Game |
| 61. Swiercz vs E Moradiabadi |
| ½-½ | 35 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | E45 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Bronstein (Byrne) Variation |
| 62. Shankland vs C Yoo |
| 1-0 | 38 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | A21 English |
| 63. Niemann vs So |
| ½-½ | 27 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C53 Giuoco Piano |
| 64. A Liang vs L Dominguez Perez |
| ½-½ | 45 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | B51 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack |
| 65. Aronian vs So |
| ½-½ | 18 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | A28 English |
| 66. Sevian vs Robson |
| ½-½ | 37 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation |
| 67. E Moradiabadi vs Niemann |
| 0-1 | 38 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | E60 King's Indian Defense |
| 68. C Yoo vs Caruana |
| ½-½ | 68 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | A35 English, Symmetrical |
| 69. Lenderman vs Swiercz |
| ½-½ | 49 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D10 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav |
| 70. Xiong vs Shankland |
| ½-½ | 76 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D30 Queen's Gambit Declined |
| 71. Swiercz vs Sevian |
| 0-1 | 42 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C80 Ruy Lopez, Open |
| 72. Robson vs A Liang |
| ½-½ | 34 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | C02 French, Advance |
| 73. Caruana vs Xiong |
| ½-½ | 57 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D35 Queen's Gambit Declined |
| 74. L Dominguez Perez vs C Yoo |
| 1-0 | 131 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | B01 Scandinavian |
| 75. Niemann vs Lenderman |
| 1-0 | 45 | 2022 | U.S. Championship | D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav |
|
| page 3 of 4; games 51-75 of 91 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-22-22 | | devere: <Teyss> <There were serious charges against Andrew, if he hadn't settled he might have ended up in jail, they don't take sex with minors lightly in the US.> It would be helpful if you read your own links before posting them. The age of consent in both NY and the UK is 17, and there is no evidence that Prince Andrew knew the female when she was 16. He acquired no immunity against prosecution by settling the civil case, and could still be prosecuted if there was any evidence he committed a crime, which there is not. The only thing Andrew got by settling the case is assurance the civil case would no longer be in the news while his dear mother was celebrating her Platinum Jubilee on the throne. It was a very expensive gift to his mom. The female, Virginia, was not called as a witness against Ghislaine Maxwell, reportedly because of her record of not always telling the truth. The prosecutors wisely decided not to complicate their already strong case by giving Maxwell's attorneys someone to attack as a proven liar. https://www.newsmax.com/alandershow... It seems that there is a much better criminal case against Virginia than against the man she was suing, Prince Andrew. |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | devere: <Young Hans could really use a mentor right now.> He's got Oved & Oved.
They rate 5 stars on Google from 41 reviewers. Here's the lead review, from Maurice Haber. <I love this firm!!! The Oved team is unparalleled. I came to them with an impossible situation, one that other firms refused to take, and the Oved team not only took it on, but devoted themselves tirelessly to it until they were successful in delivering me a victory.
They are exceptional, sophisticated attorneys who think strategically and see things from a businessperson’s perspective.
They are truly the best and I cannot recommend them more highly.
There is no other firm that I would entrust more with any litigation.> |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | Teyss: <devere: It would be helpful if you read your own links before posting them.> I stand corrected. For my defence I read the article some time ago, forgot about the small part "age of consent at the time—which is 17 for New York" and missed it when going rapidly through it again. At least we agree Andrew was accused of a crime, rightfully or not is another question: re. the outcome of a potential trial, it's anybody's guess. You say "[he] would <very likely> have walked out of court without having to pay anything", I say more cautiously "he <might> have ended up in jail". Maybe you are more informed about this case and/or law in general than I am (no sarcasm intended). <It seems that there is a much better criminal case against Virginia than against the man she was suing, Prince Andrew.> That's your opinion. For objective information I prefer to rely on Wikipedia (or other) than Newsmax. If I do manage to read properly, that is. But we have drifted enough from the original topic i.e. Niemann vs Carlsen so I'll leave it there. <It was a very expensive gift to his mom.> That's a good one! |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | Chessius the Messius: <Sally Simpson> I can deal with the excitement. Worse is dreaming about chess. |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | stone free or die: FWIW - the Prince Andrew connection with today's topic is strictly a procedural one. Prince Andrew, like Magnus, is a foreign national, but was civilly sued in a US federation district court. US law allows such cases against individual foreigners (even non-individuals, consider the suits filed against Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc). Serving papers to the defendants can often be done to US based lawyers - like for Prince Andrew. If the defendant is non-responsive the judge can make a default award ruling, similarly to cases against US nationals. I haven't fully researched the matter, but there are likely various treaties binding EU nations with the US for legal proceedings like the one Niemann has initiated. Prince Andrew tried various delaying tactics, but when the case reached the discovery phrase, and he was going to be forced to be deposed, he promptly settled. Carlsen's case could proceed similarly is the point. PS- I draw the analogy strictly on the judicial procedural matters, and for anyone to think I'm drawing any comparison whatsoever in their alleged offenses is completely asinine. . |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | Z free or die: <<kp> US defamation law is very unfriendly to plaintiffs.> But not always - ask Johnny Depp.
* * * * *
<<kp> The Missouri court probably doesn't have jurisdiction over any of the defendants but Magnus.> This isn't a state court but a federal court - specially a US District Court, that happens to be located in Missouri. It's jurisdiction isn't limited to Missouri. Being a federal court, I imagine it's almost a given that it has jurisdiction over all the plaintiffs (Oved & Oved seem to think so too!). For the general reader here's a diagram showing the structure of the US Federal Court System. https://www.sites.google.com/site/c... (click on diagram to enlarge) There are 94 <US District Courts> - all on equal footing but feeding into 12 different <US Court of Appeals> who then feed into the <US Supreme Court>. I believe the issue of jurisdiction would really only apply to where Niemann should file. There's no question about him being a US citizen, but since he basically lives out of a suitcase, filing in Missouri seems to make sense - after all, it's where he was most recently "employed". . |
|
| Oct-22-22 | | Z free or die: But here is a law professor, USCF expert, David Franklin, talking about Missouri slap laws and seeming to think the state has some jurisdiction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svM...
I'm a bit confused about that, though, as the filing was in a federal court and the amount of controversy is over $75k: https://www.cpsslaw.com/about/artic... |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Olavi: <stone free or die> <I haven't fully researched the matter, but there are likely various treaties binding EU nations with the US for legal proceedings like the one Niemann has initiated.> Norway is not part of the EU. Regarding this matter that's probably neither here nor there. |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Petrosianic: <Sally Simpson> <The hoo-har about him not explaining his moves was from those in shock that a sub 2700 player had beaten Carlsen. Some are still looking at the two ratings wondering how it happened.> The same way Fischer could lose to Letelier or Tony Miles could play 1...a6 and beat Karpov. In a single game anything can happen. But people have no attention span any more and think that each individual game is totally indicative. So if a person loses one game, they think his whole career is on a downturn. |
|
Oct-23-22
 | | perfidious: <Petrosianic....people have no attention span any more and think that each individual game is totally indicative. So if a person loses one game, they think his whole career is on a downturn.> These tendencies have come to the fore with greater force than ever in this age of social media, which enables any yahoo with an opinion to hold forth with utter certitude, very often proving how little they truly understand. |
|
Oct-23-22
 | | fredthebear: That's quite an opinion. |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | fisayo123: Carlsen's lack of maturity and absence of home training has always been a big issue for me with him. He is one of those people who was never told how to behave by an authority figure because he was always this "genius" and "Mozart of chess". I read some interview Henrik Carlsen gave, his father, and he pretty much admitted Magnus was the boss in that relationship dynamic. Carlsen has always been a sore loser, even though he's reigned it in over the last few years. I remember him as a kid, as a teenager and in his early to mid-20's. He was a bad loser. This all came out again in St. Louis , only this time actions have consequences and he and all that he's built and worked for will now have to face the consequences of those actions. |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Z free or die: <<Olavi> Norway is not part of the EU. Regarding this matter that's probably neither here nor there.> Yes, sorry, it was a mistake on my part to imply it was. But as I say, I hadn't researched the matter (and obviously don't know much about Norway as maybe I should). But the main point is that there are various agreements between nations that sometimes bind them together legally (i.e. extradition agreements, etc). A quick internet search yielded this:
<Norwegian law is a civil law system based on written laws supplemented by case law. Norway is not an EU member, however, due to the EEA agreement many EU-directives have been implemented into the Norwegian legislation.> https://nordialaw.com/one-minute-gu... |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Z free or die: Oh, <Z free or die> == <stone free or die> (Since <stonehenge> returned awhile back I thought it time to retire the tribute - too many <stones> spoil the soup and the like.) |
|
Oct-23-22
| | perfidious: Helluva lot better'n the <kudzu>..... |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Chessius the Messius: Most unlikely Norway will extradite Carlsen to the US lol Norway does not extradite its nationals afaik but there are exceptions in case of terrorism etc. One has to read the following US treaty or EU warrant to get the details: Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and Norway, signed at Oslo on June 9, 1977 https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc... Norwegian nationals cannot be extradited, unless to the Nordic states in accordance with the Nordic Arrest Warrant, or to the EU member states pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between parties. 8 feb. 2021 https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/news... |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Z free or die: <CtM> extradition is for suspects of criminal offenses. Obviously not applicable to a civil action.
I just used it as a familiar example of how different nation's legal systems can work together. |
|
| Oct-23-22 | | Chessius the Messius: <Z free or die> In that case Magnus does not have to fear either. The worst thing would be ending up in Iceland. |
|
| Oct-24-22 | | peristilo: Now we are talking about extradition? LOL, people do really hate Magnus. |
|
Oct-24-22
 | | HeMateMe: Carlsen is the greatest player since Kasparov/Karpov. A once in a century talent. |
|
Oct-24-22
 | | keypusher: <It's jurisdiction isn't limited to Missouri. Being a federal court, I imagine it's almost a given that it has jurisdiction over all the plaintiffs (Oved & Oved seem to think so too!).> Federal courts are not jurisdiction-conferring machines. <Questions relating to courts' abilities to obtain personal jurisdiction over a particular defendant are not usually germane to choosing between state and federal courts for a simple reason: federal courts apply the same personal jurisdiction rules as the states in which they sit, so the analysis in either court is, by definition, identical. > https://ccbjournal.com/articles/lon... |
|
| Oct-24-22 | | Z free or die: <<kp> federal courts apply the same personal jurisdiction rules as the states in which they sit, so the analysis in either court is, by definition, identical.> But you omitted the very next sentence - which qualifies the statement you quoted - making it no longer an absolute. I.e.
<But this simple syllogism governing the concomitant reach of personal jurisdiction in state and federal courts is not absolute. There are a small number of federal statutes that provide for service upon a defendant, but not according to the long-arm statutes and service rules of the state in which a district court sits. These statutes permit service on a defendant anywhere within the territorial limits of the United States, and they include the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("'34 Act"), the Federal Interpleader Statute, the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, the Clayton Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").> |
|
Oct-24-22
| | keypusher: <stone free>
Look, I'm not going to teach federal jurisdiction. And I'm not getting into an argument about this. I'm just saying that suing in federal court did not solve Niemann's jurisdiction problems. <But this simple syllogism governing the concomitant reach of personal jurisdiction in state and federal courts is not absolute. There are a small number of federal statutes that provide for service upon a defendant, but not according to the long-arm statutes and service rules of the state in which a district court sits. These statutes permit service on a defendant anywhere within the territorial limits of the United States, and they include the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 ("'34 Act"), the Federal Interpleader Statute, the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act, the Clayton Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").> None of these exceptions apply to Niemann v. Magnus. The court is going to apply Missouri standards of personal jurisdiction, subject to constitutional limits. And (although it doesn't matter for present purposes) national service of process does <not> thereby confer national personal jurisdiction, though in some courts it changes the way the analysis is done. |
|
| Oct-24-22 | | Z free or die: I think a good introduction to the topic - which adequately describes how liberal courts are in granting jurisdiction, especially in regards to today's global interconnections - is contained here: https://www.crowell.com/files/ABC-G... But even <kp>'s source notes that modern courts have of late been applying the much more permissive view of jurisdiction that the global economy has necessitated. I could quote several passages:
<Courts have increasingly begun to turn in this direction [i.e. not the restrictive jurisdiction philosophy]. This is a change that can have important ramifications for foreign defendants in certain action attempting to argue that their contacts with the United States are insufficient for them to be sued here, or who claim that for them to defend against a lawsuit within the United States would be unfairly burdensome and inconvenient....
But that was then. Add to the picture an increasingly global economy, with the means to conduct sophisticated business in far-away lands perhaps unimagined in 1980, and a potential to commit wrongdoing that has become equally expansive. World-Wide Volkswagen , in this context, begins to look increasingly antiquated, and courts have begun, consciously or not, to take note.> Anyways, Carlsen was in St. Louis during the alleged defamation - and <chess.com> and <Naka> both are international internet entities residing in different states in the US. I really see little issue in establishing jurisdiction. But if there is, the court will quickly rule on the issue. |
|
Nov-04-22
| | fredthebear: Thank you Z for all the useful legal information that you have provided us on this fascinating matter. You and yours put up 47-49 posts on here in October, but let's round it down to an even 40 because some posts sounded alike. Or, round it up to 50 if you prefer. I might have missed one here or twice there. Good, sound legal advice from an expert isn't easy to come by. Do you think Nakamura will get into trouble?
Seems time for an update on the court's actions when you can find the time. Also, can you define some of those big legal verbs for us? Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 16 ·
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
