GMs Kamsky, Fressinet, Petrosian, Kolev, Friedel and IM Finegold tie for first at the 2008 National Open.
Here is the full standing.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
GMs Kamsky, Fressinet, Petrosian, Kolev, Friedel and IM Finegold tie for first at the 2008 National Open.
Here is the full standing.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 |
Pretty poor showing by the “great” Nakamura.
Has there ever been anyone more over-rated??
I’m surprised they didn’t have an Armageddon playoff.
Kamsky ran away with it with 4/4, but then coasted last 2 games.
The interesting question is whether the organizer will submit the event for rating now, or wait until after FIDE’s July list. As the event is finished, it clearly should be rated now, but by doing so, Nakamura drops below 2700 and stays there for the next FIDE list. Will rules and common sense have to bow for patriotism? 😉
Well Nakaruma would have a higher rating later by having a lower one now if you think about it- as his rating change will be calculated from a lower base- so it is not so clear cut…
6 co-winners?!
Is that really what you “co-champion followers” want?
It is better to have 6 co-champions than one champion by way of a variant nothing to do with real chess.
True, for the next rating period it’s better for Naka to have 10 points less now (than -10 in the luggage for later and a higher rating now).
Regarding the co-champion question, the solution isn’t rapid or blitz tie-breaks, but stop having the typical US swiss events with one zillion players (but only 6 strong players), 3 rounds in total, where 2 strong players get to draw each other in the 3rd and final round, while none of the other 20 co-winners have even played eachother.
Or change the above to 100 players, 6 rounds, a very uneven field, 10 strong players and too big money prizes, so that the strong players win 3-4 of their first 4 games (against clearly weaker players) and are tempted to draw their way to a share of the money in the last 2 rounds.
Or put another way, you either have to find sponsors with big money, or you have to choose between
1) smaller, but stronger events (lower floor of at least 2400 USCF) with more moderate prize money (in total) – and at least 9 rounds.
2) “big” events, with many players in the open section, played over a weekend (5-6 rounds of classical chess tops), with the weaker players contributing to a pot, thereby sponsoring 4-6 of the 8-10 strong players – who don’t need to do anything spectactular at all in order to get a share of the money – Kamsky gained 2,6 ratingpoints in Vegas, meaning he was expected to score 4,74 points and scored 5. He basically shows up, does what his rating says he should do, and collects his pay check.
To me, it seems like these US swisses are designed to make a living for the top US players, not to declare clear winners of the events. Adding some blitz play-off for a symbolic extra sum (and the “title”) doesn’t change that at all.
Actually US Swisses are designed to provide recreation and entertainment for chess amateurs.