|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-12-08 | | Petrosianic: <If "chess superiority" is to be discussed, then we need to look at the entire competition, not just the last 25 seconds of the final game.> That would be this game you're referring to?
I Krush vs K Rohonyan, 2008
|
|
| Jun-12-08 | | ganstaman: <Petrosianic: <If "chess superiority" is to be discussed, then we need to look at the entire competition, not just the last 25 seconds of the final game.> That would be this game you're referring to?
I Krush vs K Rohonyan, 2008 >
Is that not a draw the whole time she's up the piece? From moves 84 to 92 at least, it's a tablebase draw (I got bored of checking from there, the position is theoretically drawn anyway so I stopped assuming she'd blunder it away). Was it any different with the pawns on? |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | Riverbeast: Anyway let's not be to hard on Irina...That's about the most excruciating way to lose the title and I understand why she reacted in anger, and had lingering bad feelings about it. Chess is a brutal game, Irina...An armageddon playoff is about the same as drawing lots...Anna did not prove that she's a better player than you, so you can take comfort in that. More motivation to bust her up next time you play her! |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | Petrosianic: <Anyway let's not be to hard on Irina...That's about the most excruciating way to lose the title and I understand why she reacted in anger, and had lingering bad feelings about it.> I don't think anybody wants to be too hard on her, but she's going to have to get over it and move on. As long as she keeps attacking her opponent unjustly, she's going to get a backlash. The match she alluded to is a much more positive solution. She should divert her energies to trying to find a sponsor. The only good thing I can say about this incident is that it's nice to see people actually <caring> about the national title for a change. And the idea that the winner should show some OTB superiority is one that's been absent for too long. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | RookFile: I guess what annoys me is that Krush acts as though 2458 FIDE rated Anna Zatonskih isn't even in her league. That simply isn't true - Anna is fully capable of beating her any time, any where. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | dumbgai: Actually, I'm looking forward to Anna Zatonskih coming back next year and destroying Irina Krush in their individual game to shut her up once and for all. That's assuming they'll both participate and get matched up against each other, which is quite likely. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | Riverbeast: <RookFile> She didn't say Anna wasn't in her league - she said she didn't demonstrate any chess superiority over her in this tournament. Which is true, I think. It's hard to settle tiebreak situations like this, where the head to head game ends up a draw, and the tiebreak mini-matches also end up drawn. You can keep playing mini-matches with increasingly lower time controls, and somebody should eventually win....But then you would most likely still have a situation where the match was decided by a time pressure blunder or a close flag. 'Dems da breaks...I know it's painful, but what are you going to do? <dumbgai> If either of them wins their next individual game, it's still not going to settle anything. It's just one game. It takes a head to head match to really determine the better player |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | dx9293: <Petrosianic: Krush is right in ways you can't explain, Braunlich is wrong in ways you can't explain. Not a very ringing endorsement.> Beautiful reply to utssb! I agree with the sentiment above: Krush needs to move on from this. Nothing good will come of it for her. If Krush gets a sponsor to come up with cash for a match for the title AND ANNA AGREES TO PLAY, then fine. One could convince me that Krush is a slightly stronger player than Zatonskih, but even if this is so she doesn't have some huge superiority in playing strength as some people on the USCF forums seem to believe (based on what, I don't know <could it be the USCF's [over]hype of Krush?>). Zatonskih has won the US Women's Championship before, as well the Ukrainian Women's Championship, and puts up respectable scores in Olympiads. She shouldn't have to prove anything about her playing strength. If Krush was that much stronger, she would have become a grandmaster already. SEVEN years since the 1st norm? |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | dx9293: <RookFile> Agreed 100%. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | Travis Bickle: Maybe Irina before next years Womens U.S. Womens Championship will declare as Fischer did when he took off a year and a half and when asked what he had been doing, Bobby replied, "I have been plotting my Revenge"! |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | Riverbeast: <Travis Bickle> And if she really wants to do a Fischer, she should propose a better tiebreak system that ensure the best player will win and help eliminate the luck and randomness factor. If they insist on using armageddon playoff games, she could threaten not to play! As a former US Champion, she should have some clout to propose better rules |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <ganstaman>
According to an article by Jennifer Shahade on chess life online: <Krush appeared to be totally lost after 56...Ne7. It was not as simple as it first appeared and Rohonyan struggled and then failed to find an easy win. Her final opportunity was 83...Rxe4 which would have won instead of 83...Nxg8?> So certainly not a trivial win but yes, according to Jennifer it was winning. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | SetNoEscapeOn: < And if she really wants to do a Fischer, she should propose a better tiebreak system that ensure the best player will win and help eliminate the luck and randomness factor.> ... and then not play in the next event, or start the next event and then quit. All right, just kidding... |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | ganstaman: <SetNoEscapeOn: <ganstaman> According to an article by Jennifer Shahade on chess life online: <Krush appeared to be totally lost after 56...Ne7. It was not as simple as it first appeared and Rohonyan struggled and then failed to find an easy win. Her final opportunity was 83...Rxe4 which would have won instead of 83...Nxg8?> So certainly not a trivial win but yes, according to Jennifer it was winning.> Interesting. So I guess it was only a draw once we reached tablebase territory. Before that, it was just hard. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | HannibalSchlecter: I hate players that do that, grab their pieces before you're done moving...how come the rules aren't crystal clear on prohibiting this? |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | RookFile: If they used computer monitors (rather than wooden chess pieces) in a controlled environment, it is actually impossible to have a problem. |
|
| Jun-12-08 | | wanabe2000: <dumbgai> I would rather see someone like Rohonyan or Tuvshintugs or Melekhina destroy both of them. |
|
| Jun-13-08 | | Valeriya: Very poor sportsmanship. At least Krush already a big drink smoke party person. Maybe she should have few more cigarettes cocktail disco dance and purge king size ego from her system. You don’t always win. She is very bad example. |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | utssb: <Petrosianic> <I don't think anybody wants to be too hard on her, but she's going to have to get over it and move on. As long as she keeps attacking her opponent unjustly, she's going to get a backlash.> 'Attacking'? How has she attacked Zatonskih?
<RookFile> <I guess what annoys me is that Krush acts as though 2458 FIDE rated Anna Zatonskih isn't even in her league. That simply isn't true - Anna is fully capable of beating her any time, any where.> How has she acted that way?
I'm not at all surprised that idiots such as <Petrosianic> and <SetNoEscapeOn> would lie and say false things on this subject but for some reason it seems to be the entire chessgames forum that sides with Zatonskih. |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | Augalv: <it seems to be the entire chessgames forum that sides with Zatonskih.> Yes, apparently they want to side with players like Zatonskih who resort to illegal behavior to win a championship. |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | square dance: <augalv> what part of the rules do you not understand? the only one who did anything illegal was krush when she knocked over her piece and didnt replace it. |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | minasina: Riverbeast: <... 'pre-moving' is not always to the advantage of the 'pre-mover' ... Touching a piece before an opponent finishes moving can also backfire ... The 'pre-mover' may anticipate a move that in fact doesn't come...and their prepared response can end up being a blunder.> RookFile: <... 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. ... the rules of 'touch-move' still apply. This is what Dlugy did to Kamsky. He would check with his queen, Kamsky would instantly move his king. Check with the queen, instant king move. Then: a 'wrong' move with the queen - Kamsky touches his king. Guess what - that's bad news because Kamsky's queen went bye bye next move.> Can I find this game between Dlugy and Kamsky somewhere? |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | utssb: <what part of the rules do you not understand? the only one who did anything illegal was krush when she knocked over her piece and didnt replace it.> Wrong. Zatonskih moved within Krush's time and that is the action which decided the game. Had Zatonskih played fairly and waited for Krush to hit the clock no Rook would have been knocked over. In fact there wouldn't have even been a time scramble since Krush was far ahead in seconds. |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | RookFile: <Can I find this game between Dlugy and Kamsky somewhere?> It was described in some old chess life, probably like 10 years ago. <Zatonskih moved within Krush's time and that is the action which decided the game. Had Zatonskih played fairly and waited for Krush to hit the clock....> Blah blah blah. Try actually reading the report from the TD: <
(3) Making a Move — Is it illegal to move before the opponent punches the clock? Apparently not.... > |
|
| Jun-14-08 | | Akavall: <utssb> You claim that <the only one who did anything illegal was krush when she knocked over her piece and didnt replace it.> is <wrong>, but your post doesn’t provide any support to your claim. <Zatonskih moved within Krush's time and that is the action which decided the game.> Yeah, so? It is perfectly legal.
<Had Zatonskih played fairly and waited for Krush to hit the clock no Rook would have been knocked over.> Zatonskih was within the rules, so I'd say she played fairly. But maybe if Zatonskih waited for Krush to hit the clock to start her move, Krush wouldn't have knocked over her rook or maybe she would've knocked it over anyway. We'll never know. But it doesn't change the fact that Krush did knock it over and didn't pick it up during the game, which is illegal. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 13 OF 30 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
