Mar-13-12
 | | Eggman: At the Canadian Open Benjamin gave a lecture in support of his career retrospective "American Grandmaster." He mentioned that one year at, I think the US Open, he took a seven move draw in the last round, and the spectators booed, whereupon he promised himself that he would never do such a thing again. But then a few days later came the last round of the Canadian Open, and this game. Go figure. |
|
| Mar-14-12 | | Granny O Doul: Maybe you mean that US Championship swiss where three of the top four boards (where 8 players were tied for first heading in) ended in early draws, and only Shabalov-Akobian was played out (with Shaba winning). The organizers gave both those players a $5000 bonus for fighting spirit. To be fair to the other six players, though, in each case the higher-rated player had the black pieces, so it was only in the remaining game where it was really obvious that playing for a win was the most rational choice. As far as this Canadian Open game goes, maybe the rest of the score was simply illegible? Maybe. |
|
Mar-14-12
| | Eggman: <<As far as this Canadian Open game goes, maybe the rest of the score was simply illegible? Maybe.>> No, no, no - I was there. They drew in 11 moves, and I thought "didn't Benjamin just promise never again to do this?" Incidentally, Benjamin's lecture was very enjoyable and I found him to be quite likable, but I couldn't help be disappointed. Then again, as I've said before, you can't blame players for doing this kind of thing if they're allowed. It's up to organizers not to allow it in the first place, by implementing something akin to Sofia Rules. |
|
May-03-24
 | | perfidious: <Eggman....Then again, as I've said before, you can't blame players for doing this kind of thing if they're allowed. It's up to organizers not to allow it in the first place, by implementing something akin to Sofia Rules.> To create, then actually enforce such a code would merely force players to complete thirty or so perfunctory moves before affixing the draw to wrap up the prize which is their daily bread. |
|
| May-03-24 | | FM David H. Levin: <perfidious: <Eggman....Then again, as I've said before, you can't blame players for doing this kind of thing if they're allowed. It's up to organizers not to allow it in the first place, by implementing something akin to Sofia Rules.> To create, then actually enforce such a code would merely force players to complete thirty or so perfunctory moves before affixing the draw to wrap up the prize which is their daily bread.> I agree. I would rather see the organizer provide an economic incentive for players to play for a win in this situation. For example, players who are tied for the lead after the penultimate round could be guaranteed a minimum prize that, by greatly reducing the monetary difference between losing and drawing in the final round, would make it reasonable for them to take risks to try to win. |
|
May-03-24
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi guys,
One solution in these cases is not to share the money in the event of a tie and use Sonneborn–Berger as a tie break. Yes the players can agree before the game on a draw and then depend on the other player sending them their share of the money. But will they? And sponsors, who often present the prizes will feel happy seeing their money going to a single player rather than seeing getting it split and divided amongst a group of wide eyed players. Or just leave things as they are. Everyone expects it to happen. The tournament table for this event shows it was won by Mark Plotkin who scored 0 from one game. Canadian Open (2011) |
|
May-03-24
| | perfidious: In my early playing days (1972-73), tiebreaking systems were sometimes used in Swisses but soon abandoned. From vast experience of poker tournaments, almost entirely online of course, I can tell you that deals are often cut. I have been known to chop, but seldom do. I much prefer to go for the maximum. |
|
May-04-24
| | Sally Simpson: The thing we sometimes forget is that the players had to play well in the previous rounds to set up the last round negotiations.. Why risk coming away empty handed after all that work. And, hypocritically, I too have done last round a deal though no money was to be won or involved. it meant I won a tournament and qualified to play in a superior event. |
|
May-04-24
| | perfidious: <Geoff>, here are two stories from my past which featured manoeuvres, one of which I would not call precisely a 'deal': The first came before the final round of the 1978 Mass Open, then as now that state's championship. Entering the final round, there was one runner with a clean score of 3-0, followed by two players on 2.5. The leader knew he would have to face off with the higher-rated of the competitors below him, against whom he had a poor record. He therefore chose to withdraw, so as to force those players to face each other, which resulted in a speedy draw. He got his share of first, though even in the state magazine, this action was characterised as the '....unscrupulous machinations' by himself. In 1984, I met the Michigan master Fred Lindsay in a quick draw in Toronto. Ater the game, he related a tale of how Gheorghiu had cooked up some mischief before the final round of a World Open. Gheorghiu and several others were equal first entering that last round, and the Roumanian grandmaster, not at all surprisingly, proposed a draw. The way this was related to me, he first scanned the actions on the (I believe) second and third boards before making his proposal. All parties involved kept the bargain and the results were duly registered. As I recall, Lindsay's account was hilarious. |
|
May-04-24
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Perfidious,
The tales about Gheorghiu are legendary. I recalled this one: Gheorghiu vs L Piasetski, 1977 (kibitz #14) and see the above comment from Ray. and this was posted back in 2015 Gheorghiu vs M Basman, 1968 (kibitz #1) |
|
|
|
|
Kibitzing
