Dear USCF Board, and interested parties.
I wish to raise oficial questions about the recently concluded US Women’s Champion final, on an on the record basis.
It is the general opinion of the super-site Chessbase that what we recently witnessed was that Americans degraded and demeaned the game of chess by their conduct during the Women’s championship final.
Even tournament directors in Europe do not recognise the final as other than a deviant form of chess, nor think blitz any sensible means of resolving tie-breaks for the serious game.
On behalf of Chessville, now very prominent on the US chess scene, in fact in terms of reader numbers, #1, I propose the USCF board the following questions which I will also publish, and continue to do so until it is understood:
1) Does any person on the board //disagree// that the means of resolving of the championship was degrading to chess and its players?
2) Who was responsible for chosing this way of resolving the championship?
3) Do the rules of Armageddon matches allow a player to move on the opponent’s time?
4) While I understand that the TD is bound by the rules and no doubt has acted properly from that basis, did both players sufficiently understand the changed nature of the Armageddon rules to what went before?
I see from one player’s reaction that this is not likely so, because of suggestions of open cheating, and thereby, what efforts were expended to inform the players of the actual rules under which they played some form of chess?
I will publish these questions next weekend as an open letter to the board. I will continue to keep the issue open until each item is both answered by people with authority to do so, and will receive any answer made to me by any party here as being in the public domain, and intended as permission to publish same.
Phil Innes
http://www.chessville.com/
The following is the response by sponsor and chief organizer Frank K. Berry
Please include the below to all further discussions on this subject.
Thanks,
Frank K. Berry
The Women’s Playoffs
This 106-move draw landed Krush into a tie with Zatonskih with 7½/9, with Rohonyan and Abrahamyan tied for third with 6. The tournament regulations called for a rapid playoff for the title. This playoff would prove to be both close and controversial, with a cacophony of criticism from internet observers.
First were two G/15 games with a 3-second increment. With the separate commentary room filled with GMs and IMs calling out variations as MonRoi relayed the moves on screen, the contenders split the first two games. Kaidanov called them “well played.” Then two G/5 games, with a 2-second increment, were also split. Thus it then came down to one dreaded “armageddon game” to force a decisive result. Black is given “draw odds” while white has extra time to compensate. Irina was chosen, by chance, to name the times for white and black, and Anna was to pick a color. Irina, after considerable thought and conversation with supporters, picked 6 minutes for white and 4½ for black. Anna chose black. There was no increment of add-on time given, although in view of what happened it is clear a one- or two-second add on or delay should be used for such games in the future.
Unfortunately the final game devolved into a wild time scramble. Witnesses say the time stood at Krush 12 seconds, Zatonskih 8, when the “clock slamming” really started. Both players were banging out their moves.
When the proverbial dust settled Irina’s clock ticked 0:00 while Anna’s was still hanging on Tulsa Time with 0:01.
“Oh, come on!” Irina exclaimed, knocking over a piece in disgust and rushing out of the room. This was all caught on a dramatic video that can be viewed on the internet. What you don’t see is that while the stunned spectators were congratulating Anna, Irina headed straight to the pool for a swim to clear her head. Later she showed up at the closing ceremony smiling and looking rather fabulous in a slinky dress and still-damp hair.
The Controversy
“It’s a helluva way to pick a champion,” said John Fedorowicz at the long-delayed closing party. “I like the old days when they would just say they were co-champions.” And so began the criticism sparked by the unsatisfactory playoff and its ultra-close finish.
Irina kicked it up another notch when she published an Open Letter on Chess Life Online several days later. She said she couldn’t understand how she lost on time when she had a lead going into the final moves and both players were moving as quickly as possible, until she viewed the video, in which Anna can be seen on several occasions making her move before Irina has pressed her clock. Krush said if she had realized this at the time she would have protested, and argued that due to this mad scramble the result was not a sporting one, and that a verdict of co-champions makes sense.
“I’d have to say that by not raising an objection at the time Irina essentially agreed to the result by quickly walking out and not protesting immediately” IA Frank K. Berry responded. “Once agreed to it is next to impossible to over-rule… even in the face of video evidence….” Even so, is it true that Anna was not playing fair? As Anna and many others who watched the video have pointed out, Irina also made a questionable move or two during the time scramble when she knocked over a piece and didn’t set it back up before punching her clock as the rules require.
More importantly, what Anna did on these moves appears to be typical and not actually “illegal” despite what some players commonly believe. Mike Atkins, an experienced blitz director who helped write the new USCF blitz rules, says, “If Player A has moved and is reaching for the clock, in blitz it is perfectly acceptable to be making your move in response. As long as you allow the opponent to punch the clock first… This is not illegal. Top blitz players have to do this to survive.” The fact that this game was videotaped seems to have brought this blurry issue into focus. Perhaps this will spur some clarification. See Zatonskih’s interview on Chess Life Online for her thoughts on this and the championship.
The system used this year is virtually the same system as that used in the 2003 championship. Playoffs with blitz games have also been seen several times in the last 10 years, such as the 2000 playoffs between Benjamin, Seirawan, and Shabalov.
I understand that for the players and for other persons involved, the questions of rules, ways to make better playoff decisions etc. are the most important and (repeatedly…) most discussed.
But for the chess audience worldwide, I think that the video from the Armageddon game is A GREAT ADVERTISEMENT FOR CHESS.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ
Very much fighting spirit, emotion and a decision in the very last seconds. That is exactly what a popular sport needs to have. Once, chess was a boring slow game played by men with long beards. 🙂 Appearantly, times have changed a lot.
A sad episode for chess in the U.S. I fully blame this on this USCF.
There is also the phrase “selling out.” While I, myself, play blitz rather frequently, I would never want it to decide any major championship – even if it garnered more attention than usual. The people drawn to borderline absurd blitz finals are not the individuals who will be supportive of chess in the long run… they’re simply amazed by speed (not good moves). It’s not the chess fan base that is lacking, just the ideas from chess advertisers. If FIDE (or the USCF) were to actually put together a modern, 21st century business model, we wouldn’t feel the urge to defile our game in order to attract a minority of viewers.
If a clear winner needs to be decided via blitz then the ONLY sensible way is to conduct that playoff game via the use of computers ie each player on a server say ICC and then play the game out. You wont have time cheating issues as has been brought out in the recent Women’s Championship. The server keeps track of the time and of course no one will be knocking pieces over. There might be mouse slips but the benefits of using a server outweigh the negative aspects. Also, the chess fans can see the game online in the heat of battle.
The status quote is flawed; there should be a better way.
Aw, Come on!
*slamming keyboard against wall*
Chess must be played with no emotions showing just like in Hockey. I never saw a hockey player get angry. Hockey fans frown upon a player showing any emotions. Hockey fans like a nice quiet gentleman’s game. Players moving the puck always being polite to the other players. And of course the other players always giving the one with the puck ample room to make a shot at the net.
We chess players have much to learn from all the gentlemen who play Hockey.
An Armagendon game for a chanpionship is a disgrace beyond belief. Both the USCF and the organizer should hide in shame and make a blood oath that they learned their lesson and no more blitz to determine a championship.
It would be better to use a roulette wheel. Of course co champions is best. No tiebreaks. Points are what count.
Of course all championships should be mstch championships with the reigning champion. This whole mess should have been simply to determine the challenger to the champion. Anything else is lame and poor and shows a weak USCF.
Everyone now says, “An armageddon game is a terrible way to determine a championship title.” I completely agree. But what I have not seen mentioned yet is that Topalov-Kramnik Elista 2006 was close to going to an armageddon game. It even went to rapid tiebreaks, and I don’t remember much, if any, bickering.
And get this…
Are not the upcoming Topa-Kamsky and Kram-Anand matches also set to wind up in armageddon games in case of ties?
Ban the armageddon games!!
-Seth Homa
I don’t understand what Frank Berry is trying to prove by attaching his essay to the Innes column here. I fully support Phil Innes.
Frank needs to admit he ran a tournament with a bad, bad solution for determining a chess champion! It has brought worldwide discredit to all United States Chessplayers.
The blame for this should be placed solidly at the feet of the USCF Exec. Board, including Susan Polgar,and the USCF President.
Please put some dignity back into the U.S. Championship Tournament and never again allow games with less than G/30 minutes, with a time increment, time control determine the outcome for players who are tied at the end of regular play.
IF blitz does need to be used to decide a title (be it National Champion or weekender), why not just play two games and then if still tied, the first person to win another game wins the title.
Time control being something like 3 mins + 2 seconds (fischer).
With this: The person who wins the title has won the very last game played.
Time control for the blitz is not guillotine, so no clock punching monkeys.
Blitz seems to have more wins/losses, so it will not go on very long. The spectators who want action will still get it as the players move very quickly.
“…Playoffs with blitz games have also been seen several times in the last 10 years, such as the 2000 playoffs between Benjamin, Seirawan, and Shabalov.”
An old totally absurd system is NEVER a justification to keep it.
Blitz has nothing to do with normal competition games.
ALL chess games in US should be played blitz, just ask the grandmasters privately, not publicly. Classic chess is stoneage, full of careless mistakes, that my Rubka always finds. So what’s the difference?? 10 or 20 mistakes, same deal. USCF saw into the future of chess, in which every chess game will be Armageddon only!! Congrats to the organizers and kisses to Irina!! Love you all out there!
“Blitz has nothing to do with normal competition games.”
It is wiser to say competition games have nothing to do with normal Blitz, as Blitz will dominate the world of chess!!! Or isn’t it doing that already??? Check ICC and Playchess?? The King is Dead! Long Live the King – BLITZ!!
Almost nobody understands classical chess. Almost everybody understands blitz. Case closed.
Hey guys, be reasonable. Even world championship in Mexico had provisions for rapid, blitz and Armageddon game. If you read regulations of upcoming Anand Kramnik match even it has provision for all three way in case of tie break. By the standards of commentators, every one is organizing a bad tournament or match. Come on. If Anand and Kramnik can accept such rules, I don’t find a good reason why Irina should not accept( which she did) and follow it. One should bear in mind that the situation those two ladies reached was extraordinary, so extraordinary solution. Even soccer has a Penalty shoot out!!
I agree with Mr.Berry,once a player leaves the room it is too late to protest.All players have the right to stop the clocks and call over a T.D.
Krush broke the rules by not replacing the rook SHE knocked over.I’m boycotting chessville!
“Anonymous said…
Krush broke the rules by not replacing the rook SHE knocked over.I’m boycotting chessville!”
Blah, blah, blah.
Pass the hemmoroid cream.