Final Letter From Krush
By Irina Krush
June 11, 2008
(Posted on Chess Life Online)
Dear CLO,
After having read the replies to my letter from the chess community and the U.S. Championship organizing committee, I would like to offer some final thoughts on this subject.
First of all, I thank the organizing committee for taking the time to reply to my letter, and for the good faith they exhibited in attempting to honestly grapple with the issues I raised. I might not agree with everything they say, but I appreciate the effort they put into explaining their position.
Many of the posts I read, as well as the Committee’s letter, discussed the question of whether it is “illegal” to move on your opponent’s time. People went back and forth between USCF and FIDE rules, discussed what was “standard” in blitz games, and so forth.
I think one thing is pretty clear: neither participant in the Armageddon game knew what “rules” we were playing under, and though it may be presumptuous of me, I doubt that anyone else in the room did either. Certainly, no one informed us before the game that we were playing under any different rules than we had played the nine games of the tournament, the two rapid games, or the first two blitz games.
The reality is, chess players prepare for tournaments by studying the Sicilian, not by updating themselves on the latest wrinkles in the USCF/FIDE handbook. Thus, I sat down to play the final game intending to follow the only rules I know well- “chess” rules. These are the rules I have learned from watching how people behave at chess tournaments over my eighteen years of playing, and these are the rules I instinctively adhere to using my own common sense and judgment. FIDE or USCF rules might need to be referred to once in a while, but for the most part, people do just fine relying on “chess” rules.
My understanding of “chess” rules tells me that it’s wrong to have your hand over or on the pieces while your opponent’s time is running and they are executing their move, just like it would be wrong to pull a piece out of your pocket and place it on the board. Whether on the board or on the clock, both these actions have the effect of creating an unfair advantage for one side, and I reject them on those grounds.
My appeal was always to fairness and to the spirit of chess competition rather than to the minutiae of legal handbooks, and that’s why I won’t be taking up the reader’s time with my interpretation of FIDE rule 6.8 A.
In my opinion, everyone should give more weight to “what is right?” than to “what does the rule say?” You should not disregard your moral judgments based on a line in a USCF handbook. Nor should you resign yourself to the violation of what’s right because it is in the past.
‘What’s done is done’ arguments are either the cop-out of those who don’t make moral judgments or a prison for those who do. If most people feel that you can’t determine a chess champion through a blitz game, then this championship is already hollow. It is good to say “we’ll do better in the future” but there is no reason not to add “and we’ll rectify the past.”
I argued that the notion of a champion implies that they have in some way distinguished themselves as better than their competition. Does anyone feel that saving yourself a few seconds by executing your moves on your opponent’s time is a demonstration of chess superiority?
I fail to comprehend why Anna didn’t bother to show me the same basic courtesy and respect that I showed her, when I wrote to her. I fail to comprehend why, if she disagreed with my assertions over what happened and what could be done to make it right, she made no effort to let me know what her objections were. I fail to comprehend why she has chosen silence over honest discussion, and I fail to comprehend why the one person who was in the position to resolve this fairly and amicably chose not to do so.
A title is only worth so much as what you show about yourself in winning it. And there is no title worth winning through violating the spirit of the game you love.
I am satisfied with my play and shared first in this event, and am quite willing to play Anna Zatonskih in a match if she’d like a chance to demonstrate her chess superiority over me.
With best wishes to all other chess players,
Irina Krush
What is your take on this issue? What could or should be done?
I’m looking forward to a future article titled “NO more from Irina Krush.”
Irina get a manager or someone you can trust to give you some honest advice.
Your bleating is making you a laughing stock all around the world.
I think that we have discussed this endlessly already. Obviously the rules should be made clearer that you can not move in your opponent’s time. Deciding classical events by blitz is wrong, but even Anand-Kramnik match is set to go to Armageddon (even worse).
I agree that all the arguing about interpreting the rules so as to allow moving before pressing opponent completes their move is just absurd just because many people have these bad habits does notn make it right.
Nothing more to say really- all has been said already. Irina is right but we can’t go around this forever- let’s hope in the future they improve organisation of such events to stop it becoming such a mess. Controversy is bad, even if it attracts attention (like toilet gate ) Armaggeddon is bad, even if it attrats audience. etc.
It is like prostituting chess standards (if you know what I mean) a disgrace to Caissa. But I feel this has all been said here before and nothing gets done.
I think Irina should focus on becoming women’s world champion, or other bigger things. This contest is so weak for her and Zatonskih considering the ratings of the rest- it like winning an open tournament in the weekend RE strength- in fact many open tournaments that I have played in have more GM’s and IM’s in. (actually even Irina is not a GM is she? so there wasn’t even 1 GM). So it is not so important.
Concentrate on bigger things- you already knew you had a 50-50 chance of winning this each year- it is not so great an achievement for you or Anna any more- more like sitting on your laurels.
Try to play in tournaments where you are not clearly the top players, and those successes will be much more meaningful in the long term.
These 2 women are decent people. Let’s quit insulting them. I wish them both success in the chess world.
It is not wrong with the armageddon method in deciding the winner of a competition, the problem is the change of time controls and thereby a change of rules, from classical chess to blitz.
Play armageddon with classical time controls next time, and the problems are solved! Preferably on a special armageddon day.
Dont know if this is about money, then it could be worth argueing a little bit. But enough is enough. let it be now and keep your dignity. You lost even if she violated some rules. You should have protested there and then or even stopped the clock. Next year, nobody remembers or cares that Anna won this. But if you keep complaining we will remember it in 20 years.
When reading this one wuestion I cant help but aksing. How long will you keep up the sexist chess world by playing in womens tournaments? Emanicpate yourself from mental slavery………
Perhaps the solution is better technology, EG the board knows when the player has moved and updates the clock. It is not necessary for the player to press the clock button, if the board is electronic.
I really like that idea, Peter. Pressing the clock is a hassle nothing to do with actual chess- so let technology deal with it.
Similarly with writing down moves- in the most important games where evryone follows it- the players don’t really ‘need’ to keep score, not to mention if the ‘board’ knows what moves have been played too.
In other words the electronic boards will be like how it is playing on the computer- but therein lies the difficulty- it is not efficient (apart from perhaps the most important of games like world championship match or supertournament) to have electronic boards- definitely not en masse- it is much more convenient to just use a computer. But in OTB play who will develop electronic boards when computer sort of do it and much more for less?
Therefore in supertournaments and such where it could be afforded, players will be so used to pressing the clocks and writing down the moves in other events that there will be no demand for the change. They prefer things to be routine.
But I agree in an ideal world why do we have to mundane things that could be recorded electronically like writing moves or pressing clock. But back to reality…
In the future playes won’t even have to physically play the moves. They would just think it in a certain way to communicate it electronically ‘*@* 11 Ne4 ~@~’
‘@:Be4+@:’
You have to have a certain way of thinking the move to make it clear it is not just normal thinking, eg maybe think ‘I move Ne4 Ne4 Ne4..’ repetitively and computer will move it. It would get so fast with time that eventually it will be almsot instantaneous, even if it sounds complicated at first.
I am dreaming…
She is still crying?
You lost! Get over it!
As I said before, if you see any breaking of the rules you must complain immediatelly, otherwise the result stands (this is specially true for blitz games). One of the player can take the clock and stand on it (so that the other player can’t press it at all) and the result would still stand IF there wouldn’t be any complaints WHILE IT HAPPENS. It’s too late to complain after the game is finished, not to mention a week after it is finished.
Irina is just a big crybaby and doesn’t deserve Anna’s (or anyone elses) respond to her crying letters.
Irina,
You have fought valiantly and the final outcome does not do justice to you. You have raised some good points and they may need to be heeded. But that will have to be in future. It can not alter the past.
In my humble opinion, do not disgrace yourself by dragging this any further. Let go. That will maintain your dignity. There will be other chess tourneys and matches when you can show your chess mettle.
Your fan,
SNJ
What would happen if a player says beforehand that he disagrees with the tie-break method used? I think unfortunately the response would be ‘tough- play with these rules or withdraw’
In other word an individual player has almost no voice before an incident occurs. The only chance would be if there was a large boycott by the players like a union.
Irina would be best served by letting this go.
Lose with dignity – I heard that somewhere… The players unfortunately agreed beforehand what the tie break arrangements would be. The arbiters were there and apparently acted properly according to USCF rules (Irina’s remark about the intent of the rules versus the letter of the rules is noted though).
Irina should simply refuse to play in any tournament that has any sort of rapid-play tie breaking arrangements. THAT is what is ridiculous.
Yes, moving the pieces with one hand and hitting the clock with the other is grossly unfair and should not be awarded. However, it is over now. As much as I understand the disappointment: get over it!
Every good chess player is a somewhat passionate creature. Irina Krush is no exception. She THINKS she lost unfairly and I can understand her frustrations.
Problem is good chess players can also be passionate to the point of childishness. Again, Irina is no exception. Forgive her. We all can be. And so were:
KORCHNOI (whining about Karpov’s color-coded Yoghurt)
TOPALOV (claiming Kramnik’s arse was wired to a computer)
KASPAROV (claiming Deep Blue’s arse was wired to a human grandmaster)
SHORT (willing to file a lawsuit just to get a handshake)
SHORT again (boasting about sleeping with another grandmaster’s wife!!!)
KORCHNOI (fuming and making sore remarks to Sophia Polgar after losing a game to her)
“Yes, moving the pieces with one hand and hitting the clock with the other is grossly unfair and should not be awarded.”
What are you talking about??? Neither player has done that.
A true whine connoisseur…
Time to let this go! Also, I noticed that Ms. Krush failed to mention anything about her knocking a rook off the board and hitting her clock before restoring the board to its original position — totally illegal. And all chess players should know the rules, especially masters, and using ignorance of the rules as an excuse cannot be acceptable.
Boiled down, Irina’s complaint comes to this: although Anna did not violate any rules, she moved really fast, so fast that her hand was in motion while Irina was cmopleting her own moves. As a result, Irina lost on time.
So on the basis of the rules, Irina has no complaint. It is worth emphasizing this, because in her initial letter Irina accused Anna of doing something illegal:
“Obviously, making moves before your opponent completes theirs is illegal.”
“I do not believe that a Champion emerges through one second they have managed to keep on their clock through illegal means.”
[Emphasis added in both quotations.]
So much for that: now Irina has dropped that and says that the important thing is not the actual rules but the unfairness of Anna’s behavior. This echoes a complaint from her initial letter:
“When my opponent moved on my time, however innocuous that may appear to be, I believe that she was committing one of the worst transgressions possible: depriving me, through unfair means, of the just rewards of my labor.”
[Emphasis added.]
If, in fact, there is anything unfair about setting one’s hand in motion in a time scramble before one’s opponent has punched the clock — and this is something everyone has to decide for himself, though for my part I don’t see anything wrong with it — then both players did something unfair, as in the slow-motion video of those last few seconds of the Armageddon playoff one can see both players doing it.
Furthermore, there is definitely something unfair about knocking over a Rook and punching the clock without picking it up and setting it back on its square first. But we hear nothing about that.
Finally, I think Irina’s complaint that Anna has not responded to her letter is bewildering. In her letter, Irina accused Anna of breaking rules that do not exist and of violating norms of sportsmanship that strong players — including Susan — do not see being violated. She excused her own misbehavior at the end of the Armageddon game by leveling an accusation of “aggression” against her opponent. What is Anna, who played within the rules and won, supposed to say in the face of such an attack? Keeping a decorous silence seems to be the most resonable thing to do. I, for one, think better of Anna for having held her peace when she might with justice have said some blunt things about Irina’s behavior both on and off the board.
Pretty much everyone agrees that a no-increment, no-delay Armageddon game is a lousy way to decide a national title. But those were the rules to which the players agreed ahead of time. Let’s do it differently from here on.
And please, let’s not hear anything more from Irina Krush about this matter. The sooner it disappears, the better for all concerned.
I have no influence (in the present) when it comes to changing the past, but I can offer a solution for the future:
If it were not for draws, it would be possible to arrive at a single winner in most (all with proper formatting) events by the absolute elimination of draws.
In No-Draw-Chess the game can be won by:
1) checkmate
2) stalemate
3) perpetual check
4) greater material when there’s insufficient material to force mate
5) greater time on the clock when material is equal and insufficient to force mate
6) time on the clock when the opponent has no time remaining.
Repetition of position (except in the case of checks) would be illegal in No-Draw-Chess.
With No-Draw-Chess ‘fighting chess’ is gauranteed. Players can neither offer nor accept draws. The need for tie-breaks would be significantly reduced.
No-Draw-Chess would result in additional tactical possibilities. It would modify endgame theory. It would instill more ‘life’ in chess. It would make chess more enjoyable as a spectator event.
The most significant down-side: The chess federations are unlikely to adopt it.
Debatable down-sides or up-sides: GMs and others would be unable to use draws to control event outcomes. GMs and others would be unable to rely upon draws for rest and relaxation.
Sour grapes from Krush. She knew perfectly well going into the Armageddon Game that somebody might win it without demonstrating superiority over the other. She knew that her opponent had draw odds, and might take the title from her without even beating her. She had no complaint about the rules before the game when it might have mattered. Instead she decided to play the game, see if she liked the result, and if she didn’t, complain about the rules. If she WINS by a second, that’s okay (at least there are no statements on record from her stating that she wouldn’t accept the title under such conditions). This is clearly unfair. Losing the title is bad enough, but she needn’t toss her reputation onto the fire as well.
Her final idea is the best one. Challenge Anna to a match and beat her.
“Who is to blame for this mess?”
You, Russia and Hillary.
I used to be a fan of Irina Krush. Now I very much so dislike her.
Irina, You were given chances to “have in some way distinguished themselves as better than their competition”,with 9 slow games and 4 rapid games. You did not grasp it even Anna gifted you a free Queen. So you put the future on the hand of luck and you lost. The Armageddon is nothing worse than coin-tossing, at least it is chess-related. Instead of knocking a piece half-way across the room, just shake your opponent’s hand and say,”Gosh, you are fast” or even “You are lucky”, you will still be loved. Look what kind of mess you have made so far! I do not like my idol being called crying baby but who else can help it beside yourself?
Irina is childish and stupid. She should of just apologized for the first letter instead of dragging it on where as she has no argument.
Hey Susan, didn’t you lose a candidates match on the spin of a roulette wheel? No one should ever complain after an event like that.
Yes, I lost my candidate’s match by lottery even though I never trailed in the match. Yes, I moved on and made sure that it would never get to this point and convincingly won the Women’s World Championship (classical chess) in the next cycle.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
GO IRINA GO
I HAVE ALWAYS CHEERED FOR YOU AND I ALWAYS WILL IN THE FUTURE. YOU ARE A GREAT CHESS PLAYER. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
GO ANNA GO
I HAVE ALWAYS CHEERED FOR YOU AND I ALWAYS WILL IN THE FUTURE. YOU ARE A GREAT CHESS PLAYER. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Irina’s “final” letter is clearly a further provocation and is totally uncalled for. I sincerely hope that Anna doesn’t fall for it by responding.
Irina, if you are not going to write an apology letter, please move on. As you can see, few people are with you on this. You are simply damaging your reputation further. IMHO, your public image is worth much more than the championship title. I hope your handler/coach/friends convey it to you.
This is pretty ugly. The rules that determine one can be a champion by wining a blitz game on time are nothing but a joke. More than that, it is totally unfair. I believe the hours and hours of hard working preparation those players had, were completely useless at this point. It is not fair.
Apart from that, obviously the title is questionable. I believe not even Ms Zatonskih will hold it with the pride a champion should.
What to do now? Well, I don’t see Ms Krush’s challenge as a provocation. Instead, I see it as a way to end the situation the way it should: within the 64 squares. One way or another, we’re talking about deciding which is better player at a given moment. That’s the whole point!
I believe Ms Zatonskih should accept the challenge. I believe she will be proud to own a title she won against a player she defeated by fair means. Otherwise, if she loses, I guess she will be the first to recognize how unfair it is to hold a title won by such poor means.
Hope a good solution will be found. This is my contribution.
They can play a match for their souls, the fans and the money, but they can’t play it for the title.
Anna won the tournament called US championship and that’s it.
A title is not something a player could own.
TOPALOV (claiming Kramnik’s arse was wired to a computer)
KASPAROV (claiming Deep Blue’s arse was wired to a human grandmaster)
(^_^)!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh I needed that!
Oh yeah, go Irina!
Boo Shamu!
I just wonder: Final match of the Eurocup and it needs to be decided by penalties shots.
Holland wins the penalty round 5-4 to Portugal (just one kick decided the champion of the whole tournament!!!!).
The Portugal team then files a claim before UEFA because:
(i) Just a penalty can not decide a champion. It is not fair!!
(ii) Holland goalkeeper made one step ahead of the line before the shot!!! Portugal team is evil!!
(iii) Irina is hired by Portugal to manage the claim.
(iv) A new federation of bad losers is created. It’s name: “Association for the Fairness of the Games” (AFG).
(v) Etc. Etc.
How exactly is any “championship” to be awarded anyway by sanctioning a chess game which, aside from its illegal moves…in itself violates the Rules of Chess which do not provide for “draw odds”, “time odds”, nor give any arbiter the authority to waive the players’ fundamental responsilibility to WRITE DOWN their moves as they play? You go get em, Irina! Obviously, the credited “loser” is the actual champion and the silent and ashamed “winner” is acting like the loser.
If you have a title which you don’t fully deserve- but need not defend your case as ‘what is done is done’ then why risk damaging your case by talking- just keep out of it and let people think that you rose above it all while your opponent just has sour grapes! Simple strategy- the power of silence. Makes the opponent seem desperate as if talking to a wall.
As chess players, we are suppose to learn from every games that we played. Likewise, we should learn from this instance so that we would not repeat the same mistakes. This applies to the organizer and players!
irina just doesnt know when to quit does she. cant take a good thing and run with it. the best solution to this is clearly to eliminate the joke of a tourney that the womens championship is. let irina compete in the mens tourney where she has no chance to win, at least she’ll be harder pressed to find something to whine about ad nauseum.
you’d think someone like her who gets a free $5000+ from this joke tourney every year would be able to accept a good thing (something any male chess player in the US would be thrilled to have), but instead she keeps crying “its not fair, its not fair”. last time i checked she isn’t in kindergarten, but maybe i should look again?
irina, you’ve already made yourself to be too much of a fool and sore loser, i would advise trying to cut your losses if its in any way possible by apologizing and ending this ridiculous whining.
Chère Irina,
De ce que j’ai lu et compris jusqu’à maintenant, je respecte beaucoup votre courage à défendre vos idées et votre engagement comme joueuse d’échecs.
Pour avoir suivi vos tournois et vous avoir vu jouer à Montréal depuis plusieurs années, vous n’avez jamais craint et vous ne craignez toujours pas d’affronter indistinctement des hommes ou des femmes sur l’échiquier! Tout comme Susan et Judith Polgar par exemple!
Vous venez de démontrer que vous savez mettre de l’avant des principes de justice et de fair play qui sont tout à l’honneur de la profession des joueurs d’échecs pofessionnels.
Peut-être suis-je maintenant trop déphasé à 64 ans! De ce que j’ai pu lire à date, je partage votre opinion sur les indidents qui seraient survenus en supplémentaires, pour parler en termes de hockey!
Avec vous, je déplore amèrement que votre adversaire n’ait pas eu la décence de chercher à s’expliquer sur ce qui est survenu.
Pour un quidam comme moi, qui ne suis rien dans ce monde professionnel mais qui est un fou des compétitons d’échecs comme du chant et de l’opéra, cet incident malheureux vient ternir encore davantage un sport merveilleux déjà tellement mal en point internationalement. Et comme si le monde des échecs en Amérique du Nord en avait besoin particulièrement.
Madame Krush, vous me donnez encore plus d’énergie et de motivation pour jouer à nouveau, après une absence de 10 ans. au Championnat canadien qui aura lieu à Montréal en juillet 2008. N’ayez crainte, je suis inscrit dans la catégorie des mazettes!, comme dirait le MI québécois Jean Hébert.
Bonjour aux amis échéphiles de partout, venez nous voir et jouer avec nous à Montréal en juillet 2008.
Par la même occasion, profitez des Festivités du 400e anniversaire de la fondation de la première ville en Amérique du Nord, la ville de Québec.
Merci, madame Krush, pour votre double déclaration publique (dubble public statement).
Your’s already a Grand Master for me and for many more.
Salutations à Pascal aussi.
Bernard Blondin
de Montréal
Cut the crap Bernard.
How did her crying make you want to play chess again???
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.
We learn much about Irina’s character from her statement:
“In my opinion, everyone should give more weight to ‘what is right?’ than to ‘what does the rule say?'”
In the USCF, what the rule says equates to what is right. And according to the rules, both parties could have challenged their opponents’ actions during the match, yet chose not to do so. Complaining about it afterwards it the quintessential mark of a sore loser.
I am indebted to Irina Krush for providing to my three children, all of whom play competitive chess, for being an example of precisely how not to conduct oneself in the face of defeat, both in her actions over the board and her subsequent letters. Thanks to her example, my family will forever have before them an excellent example of poor sportsmanship whenever they see Irina Krush’s name in Chess Life.
Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina! Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina! Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina! Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina! Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!Irina fofinina banana-rama fo-fina fi-fie-fo, Irina!