The 2008 U.S. Championship
by Susan Polgar
ChessCafe.com
The 2008 Frank K. Berry U.S. and U.S. Women’s Championships were held May 13-21 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. They were once again sponsored by Mr. Frank K. Berry of Stillwater, Oklahoma. A number of top players such as Kamsky, Nakamura, Ehlvest, Christiansen, Benjamin, Ibragimov, Goletiani, Baginskaite, and Melekhina, etc. did not take part in this year’s event. Nevertheless, there were many exciting moments and controversies.
On the men’s side, once GM Yury Shulman took a commanding lead around the mid-point, he never relinquished it. He defeated grandmasters Gulko, Kaidanov, Kudrin, and Becerra as well as IM Pruess. He finished clear first with 7 points. Former U.S. #1 and Champion GM Alex Onischuk took second with 6½ points and GM Sergey Kudrin finished in third place with 6 points. IM Josh Friedel earned his third and final GM Norm by tying for fourth with GMs Akobian and Perelshteyn, winner of the 2007 SPICE Cup.
On the women’s side, it was a two-way race from the start with both Anna Zatonskih and Irina Krush going 5-0. In round six, Anna took a half-point lead when Irina drew Iryna Zenyuk. However, Irina took over the lead in round seven and held on to it until the final round when Anna unexpectedly lost to a very dangerous Chimi Tuvshintugs.
The biggest drama ocurred on the last evening when three players technically could win the championship. Irina had 7 points, Anna had 6½, and Tatev Abrahamyan had 6 points. Irina had white against WGM Katerine Rohonyan. Anna had black against WIM Tsagaan Battsetseg, and Tatev had black against WIM Chimi Tuvshintugs.
Here is my full article on ChessCafe.com this month.
Sevan Muradian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:35 am
After hearing both sides and the multiple responses from the chess community, I decided to chime in here on this topic.
First let me say that I have deep admiration for both players and the Brothers Berry. Irina and Anna have both played in my events and I have communicated with the Brothers Berry multiple times on chess related matters. Without Frank Berry there would be no US Championships for 2007 and 2008.
However I will note that there is fault on both sides of the fence here along with the USCF.
The USCF has a history of caving into the demands of sponsors for their major event. Their fear is that the sponsor will walk away and the USCF will be left with nothing. First this is the national championships for the United States and as such the USCF should be stipulating the conditions and format of the tournament. Because of poor management for years on the USCF side the marquee event of this country has been done injustices. Regardless of what you may think of how some of the more glamorous US Championships were done, those events were also the butt of many jokes.
The USCF is scared of a sponsor walking away. Let them walk. There is just as much power in allowing a sponsor to walk than there is in accepting their sponsorship. Most of our sponsorship comes from within the chess community (I will venture to say 99%). These groups and individuals know the situation of the USCF and can manipulate that situation.
I will speak more of the sponsorship aspect at the end of this.
I find a number of areas inappropriately handled before hand by all three sides.
First I will begin with Irina’s protest. Unforutnately it came too late. Everyone can complain that she was exhausted, etc. however she did not lodge a formal complaint upon completion of the game. Secondly the arbiters were correct in not stepping in. If the players agreements did state the conditions of the tie breaks prior to the players making their travel plans, then by arriving and participating in the event, Irina agreed to the rules of engagement. However even before the first round began Irina could have filed a protest on the tie break mechanism and put it on record. These things all need to be done in writing.
Tom Braunlich wrote:
The playoff system used in this tournament was similar to ones that have been used before for other important events. It should be noted that the intended playoff methods were communicated to the players long in advance and there were no objections.
This is an absolutely ridiculous and pass the buck statement. The organizers acquired the rights to design the tournament as they so chose. They picked the site, the method of selection for players, etc. By not thinking there could the need for a tie break mechanism implies lack of planning, clear and simple.
Frank Berry wrote:
Since this was not a FIDE qualifier event we were going by USCF rules…
This statement is incorrect. This event is a national championship event, FIDE rated, and where norms are possible. FIDE rules are to be followed. Frank is an IA and should have known better here. USCF rules should only be used if there is nothing stated in the USCF rules. Where does it show in the tournament agreement for the players that FIDE rules will be suspended for this event? And if this was accurate, then the event should not be submitted to FIDE for rating (but it already is). Nothing in the USCF rule book should have been referred to in the statement posted by Frank. The FIDE rules clearly state that the arbiter should not intefere and it is the players’ responsibility to stop the clocks and make the claim. If any norms were gained from the US Women’s, then they should be invalidated due to Frank’s statement that USCF rules were followed for this event. Where there are no rules specific by FIDE, then I can see where adding USCF rules to help fill the gap is beneficial, but not in place of established FIDE rules.
Now away from the specifics of this past event.
The USCF must take control of the event back. If sponsors wish to have their name on the event or help fund the event then they can but the format of the event and the conditions for the event are set by the USCF in accordance to events of this caliber. This is not a weekend swiss tournament. This is a national championship with zonal impacts in the years of zonals.
Again the USCF is scared of losing a sponsor. Let them be lost. First the US Championships, per the By-laws, do not have to be operated each year (unless I’m reading it wrong) and only requires it operated every other year. Yes this is not ideal but there will be potentially rebuilding period of time to fix what has been broken for many years. There is already an initiative underway to raise the funds for next years event and it is working well so far. The chess community will open it’s checkbooks and help out.
By turning down a sponsor it shows that the USCF is willing to stand its ground for what is best for the longevity of the event, not just a single instance or couple of instances. Yes it will hurt before it gets better but the cut is deep and will take time to heal. You may think turning down a sponsor is like rubbing salt in the wound but guess what – it helps the wound heal faster.
The USCF must acquire someone(s) to find develop sponsorship programs and seek out sponsors, not just assign the task to someone in the office. Not only for the US Champs but for the USCF overall.
I can go on to write more on this topic but for the time being I find this is enough.
Kisses to Anna and Irina for stirring up the boring world of chess!!
Privately writing, I think the whole thing was staged. I mean played on a stage.
I’ve written an opinion focusing more narrowly on the video itself as a comment in “The Chess Mind” blog, here.
Sevan Muradian’s comment goes into “more controversial conclusions” in a well-written and respectful manner. I think, however, that the issues of sponsorship and the tiebreak system should be separated, with players recognized as having jurisdiction over the latter. This does not have to be a single choice, but can be a list of acceptable choices—just as tennis has events with a 5th-set tiebreak and others requiring a full 5th set, and golf has sudden-death, 4-hole, and full 18-hole next-day playoffs. My snap impression is that with the WTA and PGA, professional players have signed off on these alternatives, but I have no knowledge of a similar “Players’ Committee” action in chess, US or otherwise. Has there been, or could there be?
Thank you
I have been a uscf member since about 1970 waiting for the uscf to hire a professional to raise outside money. Now I can sort of understand the failure.
I get more and more disappointed in USCF every day as I learn more. I would put Susan or Sevan as President long before Bill G who is a failure as USCF President.
We need Change we can believe in. Maybe Obama can help out the USCF. Although so far Obama has not done anything different. I kind of doubt he or any one person can make much change in the huge Federal Government. It is just too big to make much change. Look how difficult it is proving to be to make some change in the tiny USCF, I can only imagine the problems with changing the US governement.