I would be willing to forget about that, if we could have an otherwise reasonable format. It wouldn't be any worse than football where you can lose in overtime without ever touching the ball.

And, assuming both players have exactly the same result at the conclusion of the event, what right does one player have to claim to be the "best in country" based on some subsequent event, be it tiebreakers, blitz games, or extra innings?

I don't understand. If in one "event" the players turn out equal, and in the next "event", one beats out the other, why should the first one count and the second one not?

If you and I play a match for bragging rights, and we end up tied, then the match has failed to put one of us over the other. So we have another "match", a tiebreaker, to try to accomplish what the first one didn't. You win that match. So why shouldn't that count?

<Any "mini-competition" after the event, series, etc. is statistically irrelevant in determining superiority.>

Heck, by that thinking, the main match is irrelevant too. Botvinnik proved that it was possible to lose a match by 3 or 4 points and then come back and beat the same guy a year later. With most world championship matches, you could credibly argue that the loser might have won if the match were played over again. But this isn't a laboratory experiment to scientifically determine beyond any doubt who the better player is. It's a contest, which is almost the exact opposite. In any contest worth the name, both players have a legitimate shot of winning.

Thank you for articulating your thoughts on the matter, are very similar to my own. There was really nothing wrong with slapping the king. I would only say that rather than her letter being stupid, her arguments within in it are without merit.

<Petrosianic: With most world championship matches, you could credibly argue that the loser might have won if the match were played over again. But this isn't a laboratory experiment to scientifically determine beyond any doubt who the better player is. It's a contest, which is almost the exact opposite. In any contest worth the name, both players have a legitimate shot of winning.>

It would be different if Krush's letter pointed out how Braunlich was wrong, without further comment from you needed, but she doesn't. In fact, just the reverse, she seems to concede that Braunlich is right, and bases her case on an appeal to sportsmanship that obviously falls short.

She knew very well before playing the game that a player might win without having demonstrated any <chess> superiority, yet played the game anyway, without complaint. It's obviously unsporting to play under bad rules, and if you like the result, fine, but if you don't, demand it be overturned because the rules were bad. That's not fair or sporting. Or legal either.

"In my opinion, everyone should give more weight to "what is right?" than to "what does the rule say?" "

Touching a piece before an opponent finishes moving can also backfire (as I've learned in several internet games!)

The 'pre-mover' may anticipate a move that in fact doesn't come...and their prepared response can end up being a blunder.

The rules for blitz have always been that you have to let the opponent hit the clock - that's it. Krush, with her "eighteen years playing experience", should have come across this dispute at least once (unless she never plays blitz!)

And sorry Ms. Krush, but it's hardly equivalent to putting your hand in your pocket and putting a piece on the board.

What respect is she talking about? She flatly accused her opponent of deliberately cheating, something I'm not convinced of from watching the video several times. After reading this last letter I have to say I've lost all respect for Irina Krush. She simply doesn't know how to shut up and stop crying like a baby. What does she expect Anna Zatonskih to do, cheerfully hand her own title to someone else? I guess she can't comprehend that some people are smart enough to simply ignore annoying crybabies. Her appeal to morals and common sense and all that is simply stupid: "I should be the champion because moral standards and common sense would say I deserve it." You must be kidding me.

The 'pre-mover' may anticipate a move that in fact doesn't come...and their prepared response can end up being a blunder. >

Absolutely. On the icc, I get reasonable results in bullet with 1. d4 g6 2. Bh6 ?!, anticipating 2.... Bg7. I made this same point - Krush could have played it like Dlugy did against Kamsky, and deliberately make the 'wrong' move - counting on her opponent to move instantly, with only 2 seconds on her clock.

Krush is definitely not a joke, but what you mentioned does indeed capture the crux of the matter. Her statement

<n my opinion, everyone should give more weight to "what is right?" than to "what does the rule say?">

represents a gross error in understanding, and the consequences of adhering to such an idealistic principle would put all forms of competition in jeapordy.

Irina needs to understand that it is the other way around; you always follow the rules, and should certainly try to make sure that the rules reflect "what is right", but you never, ever dismiss the rules based on a subjective "moral" judgement.

That, combined with her continued avoidance of the aspects of the controversy that are unflattering to herself (What about the knocked over rook? What about the fact that she never lodged a protest?) makes me glad that her latest letter will indeed be the last.

Yes, and a quick word on demonstrating "superiority". What about the 9 classical games and 4 other tiebreak games? It seems to me that she had ample opportunity to demonstrate her superiority, but came up short.

Actually the only reason there was a playoff in the first place was because Krush's opponent in the final round somehow failed to win the game a piece up.

<What Krush is complaining about is not the pre-move in the sense of moving a piece before you see your opponents move.She complains about early clock push.>

As the champ says in "The Cincinatti Kid":