I recently posted about Irina Krush’s Open Letter here.
How should this matter be decided? Click here to vote!
1. Too late. Anna keeps the title.
2. Both players share the title.
3. The Armageddon game should be played again.
4. 2-game match in regular time control to decide.
Should the USCF continue to handle the US and US Women’s Championship? Click here to vote.
1. Yes, the USCF is doing a great job.
2. No, the USCF just simply can’t handle the US/US Women’s Championship.
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Mr. Goichberg is doing a great job bringing the US Championship to Oklahoma. He deserves the highest credit for this.
A lot of folks have insulted Irina. She deserves to be the co-champion. The USCF can still declare her co-champ…but, just as always…they’ll act as inept another.
Rules are rules. You cannot change rules during games. You can blame the arbiter who had the last word and the USCF has nothing to do with it.
This is crazy. What kind of USCF president says the it should give away one its chief assets, the sanctioning of its champions?
Bill Calton
Bill Calton should not respond to anything anywhere chess related after his antics in January in Chicago. Before he comments on chess actions of others he should look in the mirror
I agree that the rules are the rules. I am presuming of course that the players agreed to the rules. Hindsight says that Irina should have known the rules and used them in order to stop Anna from doing what she did.
The key question here goes beyond a single championship for a single year. What is going to be done next time so that this NEVER happens again? The implementation of this form (blitz and faster) is not the best for the sport, the federation, or the title.
The answer is simple.
Women should not play chess at all.
“THEY’RE all weak, all women.
They’re stupid compared to men.
They shouldn’t play chess, you know. They’re like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn’t a woman player in the world I can’t give knight-odds to and still beat.”
Bobby Fischer
Maybe Bobby was right. There are about 1,109 grandmasters in the world right now and only 11 are women or about one percent. I featured women chess before and I am still puzzled why they are very weak in chess. It is surely not lack of intelligence but could be a combination of factors like fewer players, social pressures or biological differences which is most likely.
Too late. The time to appeal was at that time. You can’t change the result.
I’m sorry but the letter is out of line. There’s no reason to insult or tarnish Anna’s title.
She lost. Deal with it.
a.)To late Anna keeps the title
b.)If the USCF which is the official chess governing body in the USA can’t handle a Woman Championship with less than 30 women then how can they govern?
A.Munoz
womancandidatemaster.blogspot.com
You say there is a disproportionately small percentage of women grandmasters vs men grandmasters?
Well…perhaps the potential reward/return on investment ($$/prestige/publicity) is simply far, far too little for all but a very few potential women grandmasters to justify their efforts to become GMs.
Lifespan timing and planning is yet another issue. While most women, during their prime child-bearing years, become firmly focused on career and family, many men do, as well; but simply not as high a proportion.
Even though women have made great progress toward equality in American society/work, social tradition/mores still tend to pressure them into time-worn roles, as well.
In sum, there is no single, or simple answer to the question.
I think it is too late. The players agreed to the conditions.
I thought that the rule was that a move was not complete until the clock is punched, which would seem to make it illegal to move on the other person’s time. However, I can’t find that in the FIDE or USCF rules anymore.
Change the tie-breaking system so this doesn’t happen again.
Unfortunately, it is now too late to change anything at this point. The rules of the playoff were clear to everyone at the beginning of the tournament. If anyone had a legitimate complaint, then it should have been brought forth at the player’s meeting at the night before round 1.
That said, IM Krush has a valid point that this kind of playoff is pretty stupid. The purpose of any kind of tiebreak is to determine whose name goes first in the publicity or who gets the trophy. Any prizes that can easily be shared (titles and money) should always be shared. IM Zatonskih should have received the trophy (if there was one) but the title of US Women’s Champion should have been shared between IM Zatonskih and IM Krush.
Michael Aigner
As I said many times before: What is done is done.
1. It doesn’t matter if the rules were broken or not (they were – by both sides), the point is that Krush didn’t complain DURING the game. Complain imediatelly when the rules are broken, or be quiet for ever.
2. The rules were known in advance and by participating all the players agreed to them.
3. The only purpose of Armageddon games is to break the tie. It’s like penalty shoot-out. The better team/player (and I’m not saying that Irina is better than Anna) doesn’t always win, because it isn’t so much a matter of skills as it is a matter of nerves and you also have to have some luck on your side. Anna had more luck (it could have ended the other way around) and she certanly had her nerves more under control. Look at the video and you’ll see that Anna is cool while Irina is very jumpy and she adjust her sleeve for how many times? It’s all about the nerves. Irina couldn’t control them and Anna did. Thats why she won! (+ a little luck as a I mentioned before)
Discussion if this is a good way to determine the champion, thats a whole new discussion which has nothing to do with this tournament and it’s outcome. You have one year to change it, so that all this doesn’t get repeated next year. But please give a good formula, on how the ties should be broken. I didn’t see any.
a) A co-champion formula isn’t good because the there will be too much of them and the “title” will lose it’s worth.
b) Standard games until the decission has big flaws. The first one is financial and the other one is that these matches can go on for ever (between players of equal strength). Besides, what do you do if you have more than two players tied?
c) Bucholz, Median-Bucholz or any other method is in my opinion worse that what we have today (rapid, blitz and armageddon game).
d) I’ve heard sugestion that “the reigning champion should have draw-odds”. This sugestion probably came from people who have no idea about the format of the US championship. Who is guaranteeing that the reigning champion will even participate, and who says that he/she will be in those top group with same amount of points? This “sugestion” just can’t be taken seriously.
So please, give a good sugestion how the ties should be broken.
When your opponent just make moves close to the clock to play fast, just sac a piece and check the opponent king.
Your opponent will play an illegal move and you’ll win. That’s an old blitz trick.
When both players have no time, play close to the clock or check the king.
Too late, Anna is Champion,
but if someone could find enough money it will be very good to see Title match Zatonskih-Krush,
probably the strongest ever women chess competition in the USA
It is over. Ms. Krush lost. Let’s move on!
One round of naked Jello wrestling to decide all!!
Blitz is not suited to decide about a Classical Time control Chess Event.
Everybody can now see the ingenuity of the old World Chess Championship rule of the champion having draw-odds.
For a tournament event like the US Championship I recommend this “rule”:
1. If two players tie for first place, the winner of the direct encounter is declared champion.
2. In case the direct encounter between the two tied players was drawn, the player who had the black pieces in this game is declared the champion.
BRUZ
Draw odds should NEVER be used in ANY match. Why should one player have this sort of advantage??
There is no good reason, whether one is a current Champion or not.
Nor should any internal tournament/match tie breaking method such as who won direct encounter, who had black, or whatever be used. The players have performed EQUALLY in the tournament/match.
If a tie must be broken [eg World Championship match, or Candidates match], then there MUST be some sort of playoff.
Ebutaljib, I agree with your points (a) to (d).
Now, you ask for a good suggestion how the ties should be broken.
Here is mine for the US Championship [for the World Championship it would be different]:
Hold the playoff the next day (or whenever). Have it in a private residence or motel/hotel room – this would mean a minimal additional cost.
Now:
(1) Play two 30 minute games.
(2) If still tied, play two 15 minute games.
(3) If still tied, play best of six blitz games. These to have a time increment.
(4) If still tied, keep playing 2-game mini-matches of blitz until a decisive result is obtained.
Being blitz, this would almost certainly not take forever.
Armageddon is therefore not necessary.
The whole thing should be manageable in one day.
Armageddon should NEVER be used. Apart from the fact that it is not proper chess, there is an inherent unfairness for the player who has to choose the times (as Irina did).
Well, that’s my suggestion. I think it is a good one. Any problems with it?
(1) If it was announced and agreed by the players before the tournament that Armageddon game would be the final tiebreak, Irina shouldn’t be complaining it as “clock punching monkeys.” What would you say if you instead won it by 1 sec? You know it requires chess skills even at 1-min bullet games!
(2) The key argument of Irina’s claim is that Anna had cheated on her clock. From the video, it was clear that the time scramble didn’t start until the last 6 moves (Anna’s Rf8-d8, which she paused a sec before taking the move) and they were both moving at the same speed. And they were both taking moves the moment her opponent had released the piece! The time Irina got chipped away seemed due to her needing to move her hand across the board and back to the clock, which was 2-3 times longer than Anna’s.
This was just a normal exciting time scramble seen in all blitz games, Irina was just an unlucky loser. Trying to get a share of the title with this letter makes her from an unlucky loser to a sore loser.
I wonder after Irina’s insult how they could be good teammates in the upcoming Chess Olympiad in November.
It is an interesting question ‘is it unfair to the player who chooses times in armaggedon?’
Let Player A choose times, Player B then colour.
There are 2 extremes:
(i) Player A knows nothing about Player B’s preferences. All Player A knows is his own preference- not even what the average preference is in order to make a guess.
In this case Player A chooses the time according to which he feels white and black are equal.
However, it is very unlikely for Player B to have exactly the same preference- so Player B will likely think ‘ Oh in that case white/black has the advantage in my opinion’ so that Player B will feel adavantaged while Player A indifferent. In this case disadvantage to choose times.
(ii) Player A knows what Player B’s preference is, which if Player Bdoes not know what Player A’s is, almost reverses the advantage to Player A who chooses as small as possible from it being perfectly fair by Player B giving himself a feeling of being more advantaged.
If they both know each other’s preferences, it will be fair as they will have to go somewhere halfway between the two extremes.
SOLUTION TO MAKING IT FAIR:
Now a better procedure for fairness would be for both players to make hidden written choices of the time- then once it is uncovered- pick the time halfway between the two. That will be fair- and both will be sure what colour they want unless they picked exactly the same time! In that case it does not matter.
Force them to make love ,not war:)
If they decide to intervene here and change the outcome, then the officials ought to change the outcome of the Topalov – Kramnik World Championship. Danailov proved 100% that Kramnik was using Fritz and even found the cables. Topalov is the real World Champion and should be playing Anand right now. I think if Topalov could not get justice than Irina Krush is doomed also.
Capablanca’s moves are in 90% identical as Chessmaster 9000. does this mean Capablanca cheated with Chessmaster???
Even if a player thinks the bitz tiebreak is a bad way to decide the championship, it is unfair to retroactively change the rules. Irina’s letter puts anna in an akward position. Anna won the tiebreak fairly under the rules that were in place, she did nothing wrong. I think the USCF was wrong to publish the letter. all it does is tarnish anna’s reputation and title, and makes irena come off as a sore looser.
Could you imagine the New England Patriots coach writting an open letter saying “we have rewatched tape of the super bowl, and feel that on a 3rd down play, the a Giants offensive lineman should have been called for a holding penality, therefore either the game should be replayed or we should be declaired co-champions” It is a ludicrous demand.
The best we can do is either have co-champions, or come up with a better tiebreak for future years. Having players play a match at 5 min and a few secs time delay until a player reaches a +2 score seems reasonable, and shouldn’t keep everyone there all night. Draw odds seems gimiky and 0 incrament can get chaotic in the final seconds.
In normal situations it is too late. But it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth to reward such playing methods. Personally I actually think it is as meaningless as deciding it by seeing who is a faster runner. They can do that if they like- too late to complain- but it has no chess meaning anyway.
In fact the title chess champion is wrong name description- it is misleading- that is my main problem with it. It suggests chess decided it- but instead it had absolutely nothing to do with chess. Just watch the video- it is a disgrace.
I would normally say it is too late- however if the USCF aknowledge their mistake and what a mess it is, it would be as good as renouncing the title to co-champion without actually doing it.
Everyone concentrates on it being too late. But forget about Irina. Do you feel comfortable with Anna being rewarded by that method of moving in her opponent’s time in order to win, and have the national title from it?
I don’t care about Irina’s letter or what have you, I am just looking at it in absolute terms.
Irina is too late- but Anna is rewarded for he bad ways? Nothing to do with whether Irina complains or not- it is just unsound. I noticed it from the youtube video long before Irina’s complaint. Something should have been done about it then if not by the arbiters overseeing at the time. Irina need not complain it is so obviously foul.
“Capablanca’s moves are in 90% identical as Chessmaster 9000. does this mean Capablanca cheated with Chessmaster???”
Yes.
Kisses to Irina and Anna, way to go, girls.
ANON at 3:20 said: “Danailov proved 100% that Kramnik was using Fritz…”
Wow, that’s great news. Where can I find this.
Until today I just knew that Danailov & Topalov unfairly tried to set Kramnik off-balance after loosing the first two games in the match.
The games had so many blunders (e.g. a missed mate in two etc.) that there should have definitely no computer engines been involved…
…but now we have Danailov’s “proof”.
Where is it?