The World Championship match between the 15th undisputed World Champion, Anand, and the 18th FIDE World Champion and one-time challenger, Veselin Topalov has been announced to take place in the challenger's home country of Bulgaria from April 23rd to May 11th 2010, chessbase has reported.
I believe this is the first time that FIDE has organized a tournament in a home country of one of the paricpiants, although there have been several instances in the pre FIDE days where this was done (1921 Lasker-Capablanca was in Cuba, 1935 Euwe--Alekhine was in the Netherlands). Also when Kasparov and Short broke away from FIDE and organized the match on their own it was held in England, Short's home country, however all three of those were when the two players together organized a match, rather than FIDE organizing it for them.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
London Classic, Final. Great performances by under-20.
Magnus Carlsen managed to hang on for draws in his last two games, and finished with three wins, four draws, or 13 points, just a point ahead of Vladimir Kramnik, who had three wins, three draws (and a loss). More importantly however, with 5.0/7, Carlsen improves to 2810 for the January 2010 FIDE and at 19 will become the youngest player ever to be ranked #1 on the FIDE list.
Other great players have also been top players as teenagers.
Rusian Ponomarov won the 2001-2002 FIDE World Championship knock-out tournament with a total score of 13.5/21 when he was only 18. He found himself invited to several super-tournaments and performed adquately but not at the level of a world champion. Linares 2002 (6.5/12, 2nd), Corus 2003 (6.0/13, 11th-12th), Linares 2003 (5.5/12, 5th). He was ranked as high as 4th on chessmetrics before his 20th birthday.
Vladimir Kramnik qualified for both the PCA candidates and the FIDE candidates cycles of 1993-1996, scoring 8.5/13 at FIDE (2nd-9th), and 7.0/11 at PCA (3rd-7th). He was eliminated at the quarter-final level in both tournaments. He played in two super tournaments, Linares 1993 (5th 7.5/13), and Linares 1994 (5th-6th 7.0/13). He was ranked as high as 5th on chessmetrics before his 20th birthday.
Gata Kamsky also qualified for the PCA candidates and FIDE candidates cycles of 1993-1996 also scoring 8.5/13 and 7.0/11 in the two interzonals, he only progressed to the quarter-final stage before his 20th birthday but was able to go on much further, reaching the final candidates match for PCA and the world championship match for FIDE. Kamsky also participated in the 1990 Interzonal (5.5/13, 48th-54th), making him only one of two teenagers to partifcipate in two world championship cycles at the interzonal level.
Vassily Ivanchuk failed to play in an Interzonal before his 20th birthday but did participate in two super tournaments, the 1988 USSR championship (9.5/17), and more spectactularly, winning the 1989 Linares just before his 20th birthday (7.5/10). His highest world ranking was #3.
According to Chess Metrics, Kasparov become the world's #1 player at 19 years 7 months thanks to sharing 1st place at the 1981 USSR Zonal (12.5/17) strong performance at the super tournament Bugojno (9.5/13), his win at the even stronger Interzonal (10.0/13), and his dominating performance at his quarter-final match with Alexander Beliavsky (6.5-3.5)
Bobby Fischer only reached as high as #4 by his 20th birthday, although he has the most impressive world championship and super-tournament resume. Fischer won the US Zonal in 1957 at the age of 14 (10.5/13), and then qualified for the Candidates in 1958 (5th-6th 12.0/20). In the 1959 Candidates he again shared 5th-6th with 12.5/28. In 1960, he again won his Zonal (9.0/11), this time winning the Interzonal (17.5/22), but only managed to place 4th at the candidates (14.0/27). He also got 2nd place at the super tournament in Bled in 1961, all this before the age of 20.
Boris Spassky also participated in one cycle before his 20th birthday and also got as far as the Candidates tournament. He earned a share of 3rd-6th in the USSR Zonal (11.5/19), hung on to one of the last spots in the Interzonal (7th-9th, 11.0/20), and shared 3rd place at the Candidates tournament (3rd-7th 9.5/18). He was ranked 7th for one month before his 20th birthday.
So Carlsen will become the 7th player to qualify as a Candidate (I'd rank Ponomarev's accomplishment equivalant to being a candidate) for the world championship before his 20th birthday, he'll be only the 3rd person to reach the Interzonal level twice (his loss in semi-finals in the matches in 2006 is roughly equivalant to Interzonal players in Fischer's day) and if the Candidates tournament is held before November 2010 (Carlsen's 20th birthday), he'll have a chance to become the first teenager to qualify for a unified world championship match.
Other great players have also been top players as teenagers.
Rusian Ponomarov won the 2001-2002 FIDE World Championship knock-out tournament with a total score of 13.5/21 when he was only 18. He found himself invited to several super-tournaments and performed adquately but not at the level of a world champion. Linares 2002 (6.5/12, 2nd), Corus 2003 (6.0/13, 11th-12th), Linares 2003 (5.5/12, 5th). He was ranked as high as 4th on chessmetrics before his 20th birthday.
Vladimir Kramnik qualified for both the PCA candidates and the FIDE candidates cycles of 1993-1996, scoring 8.5/13 at FIDE (2nd-9th), and 7.0/11 at PCA (3rd-7th). He was eliminated at the quarter-final level in both tournaments. He played in two super tournaments, Linares 1993 (5th 7.5/13), and Linares 1994 (5th-6th 7.0/13). He was ranked as high as 5th on chessmetrics before his 20th birthday.
Gata Kamsky also qualified for the PCA candidates and FIDE candidates cycles of 1993-1996 also scoring 8.5/13 and 7.0/11 in the two interzonals, he only progressed to the quarter-final stage before his 20th birthday but was able to go on much further, reaching the final candidates match for PCA and the world championship match for FIDE. Kamsky also participated in the 1990 Interzonal (5.5/13, 48th-54th), making him only one of two teenagers to partifcipate in two world championship cycles at the interzonal level.
Vassily Ivanchuk failed to play in an Interzonal before his 20th birthday but did participate in two super tournaments, the 1988 USSR championship (9.5/17), and more spectactularly, winning the 1989 Linares just before his 20th birthday (7.5/10). His highest world ranking was #3.
According to Chess Metrics, Kasparov become the world's #1 player at 19 years 7 months thanks to sharing 1st place at the 1981 USSR Zonal (12.5/17) strong performance at the super tournament Bugojno (9.5/13), his win at the even stronger Interzonal (10.0/13), and his dominating performance at his quarter-final match with Alexander Beliavsky (6.5-3.5)
Bobby Fischer only reached as high as #4 by his 20th birthday, although he has the most impressive world championship and super-tournament resume. Fischer won the US Zonal in 1957 at the age of 14 (10.5/13), and then qualified for the Candidates in 1958 (5th-6th 12.0/20). In the 1959 Candidates he again shared 5th-6th with 12.5/28. In 1960, he again won his Zonal (9.0/11), this time winning the Interzonal (17.5/22), but only managed to place 4th at the candidates (14.0/27). He also got 2nd place at the super tournament in Bled in 1961, all this before the age of 20.
Boris Spassky also participated in one cycle before his 20th birthday and also got as far as the Candidates tournament. He earned a share of 3rd-6th in the USSR Zonal (11.5/19), hung on to one of the last spots in the Interzonal (7th-9th, 11.0/20), and shared 3rd place at the Candidates tournament (3rd-7th 9.5/18). He was ranked 7th for one month before his 20th birthday.
So Carlsen will become the 7th player to qualify as a Candidate (I'd rank Ponomarev's accomplishment equivalant to being a candidate) for the world championship before his 20th birthday, he'll be only the 3rd person to reach the Interzonal level twice (his loss in semi-finals in the matches in 2006 is roughly equivalant to Interzonal players in Fischer's day) and if the Candidates tournament is held before November 2010 (Carlsen's 20th birthday), he'll have a chance to become the first teenager to qualify for a unified world championship match.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Grand Prix
Levon Aronian has already clinched overall victory in the 2008-2009 Grand Prix as well as a spot in the 2010 Candidates, but it is still possible for eight different players to win the second spot, assuming of course that the sixth event is actually played
There are six events (five have been played) in the FIDE Grand Prix. Each contender plays in four events, with the top three counting. The 4th event is used only in tie-breaks.
The current leader for the last spot is Alexander Grischuk with 363.3 points and 45 on the 1st tie-breaker. He has played in all four of his events and cannot improve, so he is not the likely candidate.
The candidate with the best chance is Radjabov who also has 363.3 points. Radjabov can pass Grishcuk with just a 10th place finish in the last grand prix event, a feat he should be able to do easily and can clinch overall victory by winning a share of 1st place. Only Wang will be able to pass him if he wins clear 2nd place, and only Wang and Gashimov will be able to pass him if he scores clear 3rd or ties for 2nd-5th.
Yue Wang currently has 353.3 points and is the only other candidate who controls his own destiny. Winning clear 1st in the last GP event would give him enough GP and tie-break points to get overall 2nd place. A tie for first would give Wang the spot as long as Radjabov did not also tie for first. However, even a 3rd place finish would leave the door open for several other players if they happened to win the event. At the very least, Wang must finish in at least 6th (or 5th-7th) place or he will not have enough points to pass Grischuk.
Gashimov has 328.3 points and can gain up to 115 with a clear win in the last event. Gashimov can win by winning clear 1st place as long as Radjabov does not get clear 2nd. A 3rd place finish may lead to victory, but only if Radjabov finishes in the bottom half, and none of the other contenders score ahead of him. Gashimov can score no worse than 5th (or 4th-6th) to keep his hopes alive.
Leko has 320 points but can only gain 100 points with a clear win in the last event, which gives him, at best, an outside shot to win 2nd place overall. A clear win would force Radjabov to win 3rd-4th in order to beat him. 3rd place only just moves Leko past Grischuk (370 points) so everything would have to go perfectly if Leko were to get only 3rd place.
Jakovenko has a lot fewer points 278.3, but is actually in a slightly better position than Leko as he can gain up to 145 points, giving him a slightly higher potential maximum. He needs to win at least 2nd-5th (122.5) in order to earn enough points to stay alive.
Ivanchuk has fewer points still with 265.0 but can gain up to 160 points with a win in the grand prix, which actually puts him in the best position of the three (Leko, Jakovenko, and Ivanchuk). Winning 3rd-4th (120.0) earns Ivanchuk just enough points to slip by Grischuk.
Mamedyarov has a mathematical chance of catching Grischuk with 245 points and the potential to win 125. Clear 1st place will bring him up to 370, passing Grischuk, however everything would have to go right with no other contenders earning more than 370 points.
Summary:
Favorite: Radjabov
Contenders: Wang, Gashimov
Pretenders: Ivanchuk, Jakovenko, Leko
Longshots: Grischuk, Mamedyarov
There are six events (five have been played) in the FIDE Grand Prix. Each contender plays in four events, with the top three counting. The 4th event is used only in tie-breaks.
The current leader for the last spot is Alexander Grischuk with 363.3 points and 45 on the 1st tie-breaker. He has played in all four of his events and cannot improve, so he is not the likely candidate.
The candidate with the best chance is Radjabov who also has 363.3 points. Radjabov can pass Grishcuk with just a 10th place finish in the last grand prix event, a feat he should be able to do easily and can clinch overall victory by winning a share of 1st place. Only Wang will be able to pass him if he wins clear 2nd place, and only Wang and Gashimov will be able to pass him if he scores clear 3rd or ties for 2nd-5th.
Yue Wang currently has 353.3 points and is the only other candidate who controls his own destiny. Winning clear 1st in the last GP event would give him enough GP and tie-break points to get overall 2nd place. A tie for first would give Wang the spot as long as Radjabov did not also tie for first. However, even a 3rd place finish would leave the door open for several other players if they happened to win the event. At the very least, Wang must finish in at least 6th (or 5th-7th) place or he will not have enough points to pass Grischuk.
Gashimov has 328.3 points and can gain up to 115 with a clear win in the last event. Gashimov can win by winning clear 1st place as long as Radjabov does not get clear 2nd. A 3rd place finish may lead to victory, but only if Radjabov finishes in the bottom half, and none of the other contenders score ahead of him. Gashimov can score no worse than 5th (or 4th-6th) to keep his hopes alive.
Leko has 320 points but can only gain 100 points with a clear win in the last event, which gives him, at best, an outside shot to win 2nd place overall. A clear win would force Radjabov to win 3rd-4th in order to beat him. 3rd place only just moves Leko past Grischuk (370 points) so everything would have to go perfectly if Leko were to get only 3rd place.
Jakovenko has a lot fewer points 278.3, but is actually in a slightly better position than Leko as he can gain up to 145 points, giving him a slightly higher potential maximum. He needs to win at least 2nd-5th (122.5) in order to earn enough points to stay alive.
Ivanchuk has fewer points still with 265.0 but can gain up to 160 points with a win in the grand prix, which actually puts him in the best position of the three (Leko, Jakovenko, and Ivanchuk). Winning 3rd-4th (120.0) earns Ivanchuk just enough points to slip by Grischuk.
Mamedyarov has a mathematical chance of catching Grischuk with 245 points and the potential to win 125. Clear 1st place will bring him up to 370, passing Grischuk, however everything would have to go right with no other contenders earning more than 370 points.
Summary:
Favorite: Radjabov
Contenders: Wang, Gashimov
Pretenders: Ivanchuk, Jakovenko, Leko
Longshots: Grischuk, Mamedyarov
World Cup: Finals
In the end, Boris Gelfand prevailed. All four games in regular time were draws, which meant that the match went to tie-breaks. Gelfand scored a win with the white pieces in the second rapid game. After the third game was a draw, Ponomarev was forced to play for a win with the black pieces in game four which he did! A two-game blitz match was played to try and break the tie. Gelfand won the 1st game, forcing to Ponomarev to win the second game (this time with white), which he did again, forcing another two-game blitz match. Gelfand won game 3, which finally held up as Ponomarev went down in defeat in game 4. Gelfand won the blitz match 3-1, winning a spot in the 2010 Candidates tournament, which will determine a challenger for the world champion in 2011.
Probable Candidates Tournament:
Gata Kamsky (loser of Topalov-Kamsky)
Levon Aronian (winner of 2008-2009 Grand Prix)
Boris Gelfand (winner of 2009 World Cup)
Magnus Carlsen (rating wildcard)
Vladimir Kramnik (2nd rating wildcard)
Visi Anand or Veselin Topalov (loser of Anand-Topalov match)
2nd place finisher of Grand Prix
Nominee of Host Nation (min 2700 FIDE)
Probable Candidates Tournament:
Gata Kamsky (loser of Topalov-Kamsky)
Levon Aronian (winner of 2008-2009 Grand Prix)
Boris Gelfand (winner of 2009 World Cup)
Magnus Carlsen (rating wildcard)
Vladimir Kramnik (2nd rating wildcard)
Visi Anand or Veselin Topalov (loser of Anand-Topalov match)
2nd place finisher of Grand Prix
Nominee of Host Nation (min 2700 FIDE)
Thursday, December 10, 2009
London Classic, Round 3
I was watching the London Classic games on ICC. It seemed that Carlsen was headed for his third straight win, up an exchange, a pawn, and a half hour on time against the lowest seed David Howell, however instead of trading rooks and going into a rook vs. a strong knight endgame, Carlsen kept the material on the board and ended up losing two pawns in the complications. A draw then became inevitable.
Carlsen still leads the event, both by conventional scoring (2.5/3) and by the Bilbao scoring (7), but Kramnik won his second game in a row and is now close behind (2.0/3) and 6.
Luke McShane is in last place from conventional scoring (1.0 with 1 Tie-break point), but is actually in 3rd place in Bilbao scoring with 3 Points where the first-tie breaker is # of wins. Since McShane is the only player aside from Kramnik and Carlsen with a win, he's currently in 3rd place!
Carlsen still leads the event, both by conventional scoring (2.5/3) and by the Bilbao scoring (7), but Kramnik won his second game in a row and is now close behind (2.0/3) and 6.
Luke McShane is in last place from conventional scoring (1.0 with 1 Tie-break point), but is actually in 3rd place in Bilbao scoring with 3 Points where the first-tie breaker is # of wins. Since McShane is the only player aside from Kramnik and Carlsen with a win, he's currently in 3rd place!
London Classic, Round 2
Carlsen wins again!
Carlsen scored his second win by defeating one of the lower seeds, Luke McShane. Carlsen faces off against the bottom seed David Howell today.
If Carlsen manages to draw every game, he should manage to just cosat into the #1 rating spot, having the same rating as Topalov but having a higher # of games.
Carlsen scored his second win by defeating one of the lower seeds, Luke McShane. Carlsen faces off against the bottom seed David Howell today.
If Carlsen manages to draw every game, he should manage to just cosat into the #1 rating spot, having the same rating as Topalov but having a higher # of games.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
London Classic, Round 1
Carlsen got off to a good start in the London classic by defeating his main rival Kramnik in the very first round. In his six remaining games he has white against McShane (who won a marathon 163-move game against Nigel Short), Nakamura, Adams, and black against Howell, Hua, and Short.
The favorable draw gives Carlsen good chances to score the needed 4.5/7 (or 5.0/7) and hold on to the #1 ranking.
Thank goodness we live in an era without adjournments, under the old time control of 40 moves in 150 minutes, 16 moves in 60 minutes, there would have been adjournments after 40, 72, 104, and 136 moves. A 163-move game could have taken five days to play!
The favorable draw gives Carlsen good chances to score the needed 4.5/7 (or 5.0/7) and hold on to the #1 ranking.
Thank goodness we live in an era without adjournments, under the old time control of 40 moves in 150 minutes, 16 moves in 60 minutes, there would have been adjournments after 40, 72, 104, and 136 moves. A 163-move game could have taken five days to play!
World Cup: Round 6, Tie-breaks
Ponomariov defeated Malakhov 3-1 in the tie-breaks to become the second finalist in the world cup. Now he'll have a much needed rest day, the 4 game final starts tomorrow.
In a way, Gelfand--Ponomariov is like a preliminary Candidates Match. The match length (4 games) will be the same as the quarter-final matches next year, and the winner will move on to the quarter-finals while the loser will lose his last chance to become world champion in this cycle.
As a young teenager, Ponomariov played in the 1999 (2nd round) and 2000 (1st round) knock-outs, but never got very far, however in 2001-2, he beat Bareev in the quarter-finals on tie-breaks, beat Svidler 2.5-1.5 in the semi-finals, and a month later decisively defeated Ivanchuk in the final 4.5-2.5 to become FIDE champion.
He did not play in the 2004 World Championships, but did participate in the 2005 World Cup where he finished 2nd, qualifying him for the candidates matches. In his first candidate match he lost to Rublevsky 3.5-2.5, eliminating him from the 2007 cycle.
He made another run in 2007, but was stopped in the quarter-finals by the eventual winner Kamsky.
Gelfand's world championship experience goes all the way back to 1990, where he scored 1st-2nd in the Manilla Interzonal qualifying him for the candidates. He won his first candidates match on tie-breaks but lost to the eventual winner of candidates cycle, Nigel Short.
In 1993, he participated in the FIDE world championship event and finished clear 1st. In his quarter-final match he defeated Michael Adams 5.0-3.0 and Vladimir Kramnik 4.5-3.5, but lost decisively in his match against Karpov 6.0-3.0 (in this cycle, Karpov had to defeat both Gelfand and Kamsky to remain champion. In the knock-out tournaments, he reached the semi-finals in 1997 (knocked-out by qualifying event Anand), round of 16 in 1999 (knocked-out by winner Khalifman), round of 16 in 2000 (knocked-out by runner-up Shirov), quarter-finalist in 2002 (lost to Svidler), quarter-finalist in 2004 (lost to winner Kasimdzhanov)
In 2005, Gelfand scored 6th place in the world cup, qualifying him for the 6-game candidates matches. Gelfand defeated Kasimdzhanov on tie-breaks and then defeated Kamsky decisively 3.5-1.5 to qualify for the round-robin world championship final. He tied for 2nd place with 8.0/14. Gelfand elected not to play in the 2007 world cup (the first knock-out he has missed).
From sheer experience alone, Gelfand has the edge. Ponomariov is fifteen years younger which favors him since this has been a long tournament. It will be an interesting match. I favor Gelfand overall in regular time.
In a way, Gelfand--Ponomariov is like a preliminary Candidates Match. The match length (4 games) will be the same as the quarter-final matches next year, and the winner will move on to the quarter-finals while the loser will lose his last chance to become world champion in this cycle.
As a young teenager, Ponomariov played in the 1999 (2nd round) and 2000 (1st round) knock-outs, but never got very far, however in 2001-2, he beat Bareev in the quarter-finals on tie-breaks, beat Svidler 2.5-1.5 in the semi-finals, and a month later decisively defeated Ivanchuk in the final 4.5-2.5 to become FIDE champion.
He did not play in the 2004 World Championships, but did participate in the 2005 World Cup where he finished 2nd, qualifying him for the candidates matches. In his first candidate match he lost to Rublevsky 3.5-2.5, eliminating him from the 2007 cycle.
He made another run in 2007, but was stopped in the quarter-finals by the eventual winner Kamsky.
Gelfand's world championship experience goes all the way back to 1990, where he scored 1st-2nd in the Manilla Interzonal qualifying him for the candidates. He won his first candidates match on tie-breaks but lost to the eventual winner of candidates cycle, Nigel Short.
In 1993, he participated in the FIDE world championship event and finished clear 1st. In his quarter-final match he defeated Michael Adams 5.0-3.0 and Vladimir Kramnik 4.5-3.5, but lost decisively in his match against Karpov 6.0-3.0 (in this cycle, Karpov had to defeat both Gelfand and Kamsky to remain champion. In the knock-out tournaments, he reached the semi-finals in 1997 (knocked-out by qualifying event Anand), round of 16 in 1999 (knocked-out by winner Khalifman), round of 16 in 2000 (knocked-out by runner-up Shirov), quarter-finalist in 2002 (lost to Svidler), quarter-finalist in 2004 (lost to winner Kasimdzhanov)
In 2005, Gelfand scored 6th place in the world cup, qualifying him for the 6-game candidates matches. Gelfand defeated Kasimdzhanov on tie-breaks and then defeated Kamsky decisively 3.5-1.5 to qualify for the round-robin world championship final. He tied for 2nd place with 8.0/14. Gelfand elected not to play in the 2007 world cup (the first knock-out he has missed).
From sheer experience alone, Gelfand has the edge. Ponomariov is fifteen years younger which favors him since this has been a long tournament. It will be an interesting match. I favor Gelfand overall in regular time.
Monday, December 7, 2009
London Classic
The 8-player round robin London classic kicks off tomorrow. The top participants are Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik, but also on hand is US Champion Hikaru Nakamura, Chinese top player Ni Hua, and four of the leading English grandmasters, Nigel Short, Michael Adams, Luke McShane, and David Howell.
Barring a complete meltdown, Kramnik and Carlsen are pretty much assured of remaning in the top 2 rating wildcard spots for the Candidates match next year, so the main question is if Carlsen can become the official #1 rated player in January 2010. Right now he leads Topalov by less than a point (2805.7-2805.1). According to my calculations, if he scores 4.5/7 he'll lose 1.1 rating points, falling to 2804.6. Since these both round to 2805, he might still get the #1 rating because the first tie-breaker is # of games played, but I'm not sure about that. If he scores 5.0/7 then he'll gain 3.9 points and have the #1 spot outright.
Barring a complete meltdown, Kramnik and Carlsen are pretty much assured of remaning in the top 2 rating wildcard spots for the Candidates match next year, so the main question is if Carlsen can become the official #1 rated player in January 2010. Right now he leads Topalov by less than a point (2805.7-2805.1). According to my calculations, if he scores 4.5/7 he'll lose 1.1 rating points, falling to 2804.6. Since these both round to 2805, he might still get the #1 rating because the first tie-breaker is # of games played, but I'm not sure about that. If he scores 5.0/7 then he'll gain 3.9 points and have the #1 spot outright.
ICC Results
For the first time in weeks I spent some time on ICC. The results weren't pretty:
5-min: 3-3, rating from 1692 to 1688
1-min: 1-5, rating from 1659 to 1563
One standard game: 20/10 In an effort to win a pawn, a mouse slip on 30th move, I gave up a queen.
[Event "ICC 20 10"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2009.12.07"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Rookie123"]
[Black "klizzaus"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "1888"]
[BlackElo "1780"]
[Opening "Sicilian: Canal-Sokolsky attack, 3...Bd7"]
[ECO "B52"]
[NIC "SI.01"]
[Time "18:42:01"]
[TimeControl "1200+10"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. Re1 Qg4
8. h3 Qg6 9. Qa4 Nd7 10. d4 cxd4 11. cxd4 e6 12. Nc3 Be7 13. d5 Nce5 14.
Nxe5 dxe5 15. Nb5 O-O 16. Nc7?? Rac8?? 17. Qxd7 Bb4 18. Re2?? Rfd8 19. Qb5 Bd6 20.
Rc2 Rxc7 21. Rxc7 Bxc7 22. Qxb7 Bb6 23. d6 Rxd6 24. Qb8+?? Rd8 25. Qxe5 Rd1+
26. Kh2 h6 27. b3? Bxf2 28. g4 Re1 29. Bb2 Re2 30. Kh1 Qf5?? 31. gxf5 1-0 Black resigned.
Lots of double question-marks. I meant of course 30...Qxe4+, and black is up a pawn in a rook and minor piece endgame.
5-min: 3-3, rating from 1692 to 1688
1-min: 1-5, rating from 1659 to 1563
One standard game: 20/10 In an effort to win a pawn, a mouse slip on 30th move, I gave up a queen.
[Event "ICC 20 10"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2009.12.07"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Rookie123"]
[Black "klizzaus"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[WhiteElo "1888"]
[BlackElo "1780"]
[Opening "Sicilian: Canal-Sokolsky attack, 3...Bd7"]
[ECO "B52"]
[NIC "SI.01"]
[Time "18:42:01"]
[TimeControl "1200+10"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. Re1 Qg4
8. h3 Qg6 9. Qa4 Nd7 10. d4 cxd4 11. cxd4 e6 12. Nc3 Be7 13. d5 Nce5 14.
Nxe5 dxe5 15. Nb5 O-O 16. Nc7?? Rac8?? 17. Qxd7 Bb4 18. Re2?? Rfd8 19. Qb5 Bd6 20.
Rc2 Rxc7 21. Rxc7 Bxc7 22. Qxb7 Bb6 23. d6 Rxd6 24. Qb8+?? Rd8 25. Qxe5 Rd1+
26. Kh2 h6 27. b3? Bxf2 28. g4 Re1 29. Bb2 Re2 30. Kh1 Qf5?? 31. gxf5 1-0 Black resigned.
Lots of double question-marks. I meant of course 30...Qxe4+, and black is up a pawn in a rook and minor piece endgame.
World Cup: Round 6, Day 2
Gelfand defeated Karjakin again to win his mini-match 2-0, this means he'll get two rest days before the start of the final four-game match.
Ponomariov and Malakhov drew again, which means they'll go to tie-breakers tomorrow. I think Ponomariov will be victorious, but I've already been wrong about Malakhov twice, once against So (round of 16), and once against Svidler (quarter-finals).
Ponomariov and Malakhov drew again, which means they'll go to tie-breakers tomorrow. I think Ponomariov will be victorious, but I've already been wrong about Malakhov twice, once against So (round of 16), and once against Svidler (quarter-finals).
World Amateur Championship Announced
Chicago, IL will be hosting the World Amateur Championships on March 19-25th. In many ways, it is similar to the annual US Open. It is a nine-round tournament stretched over seven days with a $20,000 min prize fund. The entry fee ($120) is very similar to the US Open ($125).
The main difference is that this is an Amateur championship, so only players rated 2000 FIDE or lower are allowed to play (I'm eligible since my FIDE is 1912). The winner gets an automatic 2200 FIDE rating and the FM title.
As with any FIDE championship it seems, there's a few things that are weird with this tournament.
1) Why is it only eligible to <2000 FIDE players, and the ultimate reward is the FM title? That would be like a US tournament for A-players and below, the winner getting the national master title! It seems like the Amateur championships should be open to anyone who is not a (FIDE) master.
2) $20,000 is not a very high prize fund, especially for the $120 EF. The announcement states that if the tournament has 600 players, it will bump prize fund up to $30,000, and 800 players, $40,000. So let's say $50 prize fund/ player, even though with 599 entries, it's closer to $33/player. This means that of the $120 minimum EF, less than half is going towards prizes. The minimum entry fee of another large tournament, the North American Open, is $243. Prizes are announced as $120,000 b/600 entries (with a $90,000 minimum), so of that $243 EF, $200 is going into prizes or 82.3%, nearly twice the amount of the World Amateur Championship (41.67%)
3) I spent six days in the 2009 US Open, I'd have to spend seven at the World Amateur Championship. The US Open has over a hundred years of history and in practically no other tournament in the country does a club player have the opportunity to play against masters or even international masters. Getting an even or positive score at the US Open is often considered a highlight of the club player's career. The World Amateur Championship holds no comparable mystique to it. It's just not worth spending seven days in a hotel for. I could see playing if I lived in the Chicago area, but I'm not going to travel over a thousand miles to play.
The main difference is that this is an Amateur championship, so only players rated 2000 FIDE or lower are allowed to play (I'm eligible since my FIDE is 1912). The winner gets an automatic 2200 FIDE rating and the FM title.
As with any FIDE championship it seems, there's a few things that are weird with this tournament.
1) Why is it only eligible to <2000 FIDE players, and the ultimate reward is the FM title? That would be like a US tournament for A-players and below, the winner getting the national master title! It seems like the Amateur championships should be open to anyone who is not a (FIDE) master.
2) $20,000 is not a very high prize fund, especially for the $120 EF. The announcement states that if the tournament has 600 players, it will bump prize fund up to $30,000, and 800 players, $40,000. So let's say $50 prize fund/ player, even though with 599 entries, it's closer to $33/player. This means that of the $120 minimum EF, less than half is going towards prizes. The minimum entry fee of another large tournament, the North American Open, is $243. Prizes are announced as $120,000 b/600 entries (with a $90,000 minimum), so of that $243 EF, $200 is going into prizes or 82.3%, nearly twice the amount of the World Amateur Championship (41.67%)
3) I spent six days in the 2009 US Open, I'd have to spend seven at the World Amateur Championship. The US Open has over a hundred years of history and in practically no other tournament in the country does a club player have the opportunity to play against masters or even international masters. Getting an even or positive score at the US Open is often considered a highlight of the club player's career. The World Amateur Championship holds no comparable mystique to it. It's just not worth spending seven days in a hotel for. I could see playing if I lived in the Chicago area, but I'm not going to travel over a thousand miles to play.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
World Cup: Round 6, Game 1
Gelfand defeated Karjakin in the first round, with black! In order to force a rapid-play-off, Karjakin will have to win the second game with black against the #1 seed of the tournament. Almost assuredly, one of the two finalists will be Boris Gelfand.
The other semi-final game was a draw, in contrast to the other game, it is much more likely this will go to rapid-play. I still give the advantage to Ponomariov.
The other semi-final game was a draw, in contrast to the other game, it is much more likely this will go to rapid-play. I still give the advantage to Ponomariov.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
I'm up to 4-0 on redhotpawn (one more game till rating) and have six games going.
As it turned out, my opponent in the USCF tournament responded in both games (one in just time before getting forfeited), so 0.5-5.5 in last place is looking pretty likely again. I'm hoping I can do better in 2010. I'm planning on starting six tournaments, one every two months, although I may have to do fewer if the games pile up too much.
2010 Correspondence Tournaments:
January: Colorado Correspondence Championship Semi-final
Match: 2010 Electronic Knights
May: ICCF Open Promotion Tournament
July: USCF 7-RR
Sept: USCF 7-RR
Nov: ICCF Open Promotion Tournament
As it turned out, my opponent in the USCF tournament responded in both games (one in just time before getting forfeited), so 0.5-5.5 in last place is looking pretty likely again. I'm hoping I can do better in 2010. I'm planning on starting six tournaments, one every two months, although I may have to do fewer if the games pile up too much.
2010 Correspondence Tournaments:
January: Colorado Correspondence Championship Semi-final
Match: 2010 Electronic Knights
May: ICCF Open Promotion Tournament
July: USCF 7-RR
Sept: USCF 7-RR
Nov: ICCF Open Promotion Tournament
World Cup: Round 5
Four players left:
Gelfand defeated Jakovenko (1-1, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Ponomariov defeatd Gashimov (1-1, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Malahkov defeated Svidler (1.5-0.5)
Karjakin defeated Mamedyarov (1.5-0.5)
Not bad, I was three for four.
Semi-finals:
Gelfand vs Karjakin
Ponomariov vs Malahkov
I'd like to see Boris Gelfand (2008 World Championship Candidate) and Rusian Ponomariov (2002 FIDE World Championship Championship) in the final, but I'm actually thinking Karjakin might end up winning his semi-final with Gelfand. Gelfand is still in the tournament, but was forced to win his 3rd, 4th, and 5th round games in the tie-breaks rather in normal time. Karjakin has age and a free day on his side.
Gelfand defeated Jakovenko (1-1, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Ponomariov defeatd Gashimov (1-1, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Malahkov defeated Svidler (1.5-0.5)
Karjakin defeated Mamedyarov (1.5-0.5)
Not bad, I was three for four.
Semi-finals:
Gelfand vs Karjakin
Ponomariov vs Malahkov
I'd like to see Boris Gelfand (2008 World Championship Candidate) and Rusian Ponomariov (2002 FIDE World Championship Championship) in the final, but I'm actually thinking Karjakin might end up winning his semi-final with Gelfand. Gelfand is still in the tournament, but was forced to win his 3rd, 4th, and 5th round games in the tie-breaks rather in normal time. Karjakin has age and a free day on his side.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
World Cup: Round 4
Eight players left.
Gelfand (1) won (1.0-1.0, 2.0-2.0 RP, 1.5-0.5 BP)
Gashimov (2) won (1.0-1.0, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Svidler (3) won (1.5-0.5)
Mamedyarov (13) won (1.5-0.5)
Karjakin (12) won (1.5-0.5)
Malakhov (11) won (1.0-1.0, 3.0-1.0 RP)
Ponomariov (7) won (1.0-1.0, 2.5-1.5 RP)
Jakovenko (9) won (1.0-1.0. 2.0-2.0 RP, 2.0-0.0 BP)
Quarter-finals
Board 1: Gelfand vs Jakovenko
Board 2: Gashimov vs Ponomariov
Board 3: Svidler vs Malakhov
Board 4: Mamedyarov vs Karjakin
I'm thinking Gelfand, Ponomariov, Svidler, and Karjakin in the semi-finals, but with 2-game matches, you can basically flip a coin in each match.
Gelfand (1) won (1.0-1.0, 2.0-2.0 RP, 1.5-0.5 BP)
Gashimov (2) won (1.0-1.0, 2.5-0.5 RP)
Svidler (3) won (1.5-0.5)
Mamedyarov (13) won (1.5-0.5)
Karjakin (12) won (1.5-0.5)
Malakhov (11) won (1.0-1.0, 3.0-1.0 RP)
Ponomariov (7) won (1.0-1.0, 2.5-1.5 RP)
Jakovenko (9) won (1.0-1.0. 2.0-2.0 RP, 2.0-0.0 BP)
Quarter-finals
Board 1: Gelfand vs Jakovenko
Board 2: Gashimov vs Ponomariov
Board 3: Svidler vs Malakhov
Board 4: Mamedyarov vs Karjakin
I'm thinking Gelfand, Ponomariov, Svidler, and Karjakin in the semi-finals, but with 2-game matches, you can basically flip a coin in each match.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
World Cup: Round 3
The last woman, American, and Chinese all lost today.
Wang Yue and Li Chao both forfeited a tie-break rapid game when they were 2 minutes late, both lost the tie-break match. Although four Chinese players qualified for round 3, none of them reached the final 16.
Giant-killer Wesley So brought down defending champion Gata Kamsky in the first game, and then held Kamsky to a draw in the 2nd game, meaning the world cup will have a new champion this year. However, Gata Kamsky already qualifies for the candidates tournament in 2010 because of his loss to Topalov in the last candidates match so the loss is not so bitter.
Judit Polgar, the strongest woman chess player in the history of the game drew twice with Boris Gelfand, the #1 seed, and pushed the match into tie-breaks, however she was overmatched in the rapid games and fell ahead of schedule 2.5-0.5
Here are the matchups for Round 4:
Board 1: Gelfand (1) 2758 vs Vachier-Lagrave (17) 2718
Board 2: Gashimov (2) 2758 vs Caruana (50) 2648
Board 3: Svidler (3) 2754 vs Shirov (14) 2719
Board 4: Laznicka (61) 2637 vs Mamedyarov (13) 2719
Board 5: Vitiugov (28) 2694 vs Karjakin (12) 2723
Board 6: So (59) 2640 vs Malakhov (22) 2706
Board 7: Ponomariov (7) 2739 vs Bacrot (23) 2700
Board 8: Grischuk (8) 2736 vs Jakovenko (9) 2736
Of the 16 remaining players, only 4 are rated below 2700. So will face his 3rd 2700 in a row (but lowest rated!)
Wang Yue and Li Chao both forfeited a tie-break rapid game when they were 2 minutes late, both lost the tie-break match. Although four Chinese players qualified for round 3, none of them reached the final 16.
Giant-killer Wesley So brought down defending champion Gata Kamsky in the first game, and then held Kamsky to a draw in the 2nd game, meaning the world cup will have a new champion this year. However, Gata Kamsky already qualifies for the candidates tournament in 2010 because of his loss to Topalov in the last candidates match so the loss is not so bitter.
Judit Polgar, the strongest woman chess player in the history of the game drew twice with Boris Gelfand, the #1 seed, and pushed the match into tie-breaks, however she was overmatched in the rapid games and fell ahead of schedule 2.5-0.5
Here are the matchups for Round 4:
Board 1: Gelfand (1) 2758 vs Vachier-Lagrave (17) 2718
Board 2: Gashimov (2) 2758 vs Caruana (50) 2648
Board 3: Svidler (3) 2754 vs Shirov (14) 2719
Board 4: Laznicka (61) 2637 vs Mamedyarov (13) 2719
Board 5: Vitiugov (28) 2694 vs Karjakin (12) 2723
Board 6: So (59) 2640 vs Malakhov (22) 2706
Board 7: Ponomariov (7) 2739 vs Bacrot (23) 2700
Board 8: Grischuk (8) 2736 vs Jakovenko (9) 2736
Of the 16 remaining players, only 4 are rated below 2700. So will face his 3rd 2700 in a row (but lowest rated!)
Friday, November 27, 2009
World Cup: Round 2
And the upsets begin:
Seeds 4, 5, and 6 all lost in Round 2. Ivanchuk and Morozevich went down 0-2, while Radjabov only managed a half point. Ivanchuk was a very poor loser, claiming that his opponent "played badly".
Gata Kamsky is the only American remaining after round 2, although Fabiano Caruana, a player who holds both US and Italian citizenship, is still in the hunt.
Seeds 4, 5, and 6 all lost in Round 2. Ivanchuk and Morozevich went down 0-2, while Radjabov only managed a half point. Ivanchuk was a very poor loser, claiming that his opponent "played badly".
Gata Kamsky is the only American remaining after round 2, although Fabiano Caruana, a player who holds both US and Italian citizenship, is still in the hunt.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It's a Lonnnng wait
I've just gone into hibernation (excused time) in both of my correspondence tournaments. In my USCF tournament, one player has not moved in either of his games for 28 days. Normally I'd have about two months to go to wait him out, but fortunately the event is played on ICCF's webserver, and although they have a time control of 10 moves in 50 days, there are two additional rules that are to my benefit.
1) Duplication after 20 days. If a player does not move for more than 20 days, every day used after 20 will be counted twice (so somebody who does not move for 21 days would use 22 days reflection time, somebody who does not move for 30 days would use 40, etc. Excused time is not counted.
2) Forfeiture after 40 days of no moves. Again, excused time is not counted.
So although he still has more than 30 days left in both games, I may be able to claim two wins come early December. That's some good news because I've done very poorly in that four-player round robin, and those two games are likely the only points I will be scoring.
In my ICCF Open section, my games are moving right along. I've seen several crosstables where games begin ending just a week or two after they start! Fortunately that is not the case in my tournament, as most of my opponents are taking at least a day or two to make their response.
1) Duplication after 20 days. If a player does not move for more than 20 days, every day used after 20 will be counted twice (so somebody who does not move for 21 days would use 22 days reflection time, somebody who does not move for 30 days would use 40, etc. Excused time is not counted.
2) Forfeiture after 40 days of no moves. Again, excused time is not counted.
So although he still has more than 30 days left in both games, I may be able to claim two wins come early December. That's some good news because I've done very poorly in that four-player round robin, and those two games are likely the only points I will be scoring.
In my ICCF Open section, my games are moving right along. I've seen several crosstables where games begin ending just a week or two after they start! Fortunately that is not the case in my tournament, as most of my opponents are taking at least a day or two to make their response.
Monday, November 23, 2009
World Cup: Round 1
All of the top 10 favorites moved on. Four of the ten US players (Kamsky, Onischuk, Akobian, and Shabalov) survive to round 2. Akobian had the longest day of the surivors, having to play four rapid games and ten (!) blitz games to defeat his first round opponent.
The Top Seeds:
1) Boris Gelfand 1.5-0.5
2) Vugar Gashimov 2.0-0.0
3) Peter Svidler 2.0-0.0
4) Alexander Morozevich 2.0-0.0
5) Teimour Radjabov 2.0-0.0
6) Vassily Ivanchuk 2.0-0.0
7) Rusian Ponomariov 1.5-0.5
8) Alexander Grischuk 1.5-0.5
9) Dmitry Jakovenko 1.5-0.5
10) Yue Wang 2.0-0.0
Team USA:
27) Gata Kamsky 1.5-0.5
35) Alexander Onischuk 1.5-0.5
71) Varuzhan Akobian 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0. Blitz 6.0-4.0
74) Yuri Shulman 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0. Blitz: 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 3)
85) Alexander Shabalov 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0, Blitz: 1.5-0.5
86) Jaan Ehlvest 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
103) Robert Hess 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
104) Ray Robson 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
109) Joshua Friedel 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
110) Alexander Ivanov 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
Difference from 2007:
One improvement over the 2007 World Cup is the amount of rapid games played before they move on to blitz, and the number of blitz games that were played before moving on to an Armageddon game. In 2007, only two rapid games were played before moving on to blitz, and only two blitz games were played before playing the 6/5 Armageddon game. This time the first tie-breaker is a 4-game rapid match, followed by 5 two-game blitz matches. If all seven of these matches are tied, then there is an Armageddon play-off. Of the twenty matches that went to tie-breaks, fourteen were decided in the rapid games, and five more were decided by the first blitz match. Only Akobian's match went all ten games. Had his opponent won the last blitz game, only then the match would have gone to Armageddon.
Format:
The Knock-out format to determine a candidate for the World Championship is a poor one in my opinion. Some time ago, FIDE suggested that instead of a knock-out, they would do two stages of round robins, and then a final match (sort of a sped up Candidates tournament). The 128 players would be split up into 16 groups of 8 and would play round-robins. The 16 winners would then be paired again into 2 groups of 8 and play another round robin. The two winners would then play a 4-game match to determine the overall winner. Although not without its flaws, this would be vastly superior to the knock-out format.
The current knock-out system ensures that 50% of the field will play a grand total of 2 rated games. Many of them will travel thousands of miles to play two games against a player that is 200 or 300 ELO points above them. Seven-eights (112 out of 128 players) will play six rated games or less, not even enough for a GM norm.
With the suggested format, all players will get to play at least seven games. The bottom 10 ranked players have good chances to score at least a consolation point since they're not paired against one of the top 15 or so players in the world. With less emphasis on rapid and blitz games, the best player in each group is much more likely to advance.
Personally, I think instead of a complicated round robin struggle, a simple swiss tournament should be used. Make the tournament say a 13 round or a 15 round swiss, and instead of qualifying just one player, make sure the first eight or ten move on to the next stage.
It is practically impossible to come up with a tournament that can reliably whittle 128 players down to 1 in just three weeks. Since the world championship is at stake, it would be safer to whittle down to 8 or 10 players. Although the player who "should" win the tournament may not be 1st in such a large field, he should be in the top 10.
The Top Seeds:
1) Boris Gelfand 1.5-0.5
2) Vugar Gashimov 2.0-0.0
3) Peter Svidler 2.0-0.0
4) Alexander Morozevich 2.0-0.0
5) Teimour Radjabov 2.0-0.0
6) Vassily Ivanchuk 2.0-0.0
7) Rusian Ponomariov 1.5-0.5
8) Alexander Grischuk 1.5-0.5
9) Dmitry Jakovenko 1.5-0.5
10) Yue Wang 2.0-0.0
Team USA:
27) Gata Kamsky 1.5-0.5
35) Alexander Onischuk 1.5-0.5
71) Varuzhan Akobian 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0. Blitz 6.0-4.0
74) Yuri Shulman 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0. Blitz: 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 3)
85) Alexander Shabalov 1.0-1.0, Rapid: 2.0-2.0, Blitz: 1.5-0.5
86) Jaan Ehlvest 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
103) Robert Hess 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
104) Ray Robson 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
109) Joshua Friedel 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
110) Alexander Ivanov 0.5-1.5 (eliminated on day 2)
Difference from 2007:
One improvement over the 2007 World Cup is the amount of rapid games played before they move on to blitz, and the number of blitz games that were played before moving on to an Armageddon game. In 2007, only two rapid games were played before moving on to blitz, and only two blitz games were played before playing the 6/5 Armageddon game. This time the first tie-breaker is a 4-game rapid match, followed by 5 two-game blitz matches. If all seven of these matches are tied, then there is an Armageddon play-off. Of the twenty matches that went to tie-breaks, fourteen were decided in the rapid games, and five more were decided by the first blitz match. Only Akobian's match went all ten games. Had his opponent won the last blitz game, only then the match would have gone to Armageddon.
Format:
The Knock-out format to determine a candidate for the World Championship is a poor one in my opinion. Some time ago, FIDE suggested that instead of a knock-out, they would do two stages of round robins, and then a final match (sort of a sped up Candidates tournament). The 128 players would be split up into 16 groups of 8 and would play round-robins. The 16 winners would then be paired again into 2 groups of 8 and play another round robin. The two winners would then play a 4-game match to determine the overall winner. Although not without its flaws, this would be vastly superior to the knock-out format.
The current knock-out system ensures that 50% of the field will play a grand total of 2 rated games. Many of them will travel thousands of miles to play two games against a player that is 200 or 300 ELO points above them. Seven-eights (112 out of 128 players) will play six rated games or less, not even enough for a GM norm.
With the suggested format, all players will get to play at least seven games. The bottom 10 ranked players have good chances to score at least a consolation point since they're not paired against one of the top 15 or so players in the world. With less emphasis on rapid and blitz games, the best player in each group is much more likely to advance.
Personally, I think instead of a complicated round robin struggle, a simple swiss tournament should be used. Make the tournament say a 13 round or a 15 round swiss, and instead of qualifying just one player, make sure the first eight or ten move on to the next stage.
It is practically impossible to come up with a tournament that can reliably whittle 128 players down to 1 in just three weeks. Since the world championship is at stake, it would be safer to whittle down to 8 or 10 players. Although the player who "should" win the tournament may not be 1st in such a large field, he should be in the top 10.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Past USCF Elections:
I had a hell of a time tracking all of these results down. The USCF site should really have an archive for these things.
2003: Six candidates, plus Steve Doyle's write-in candidacy. Voters could have up to three votes, top 3 were elected to four-year terms (2003-2007)
Total Votes Cast: 4876. Divided by 3 votes per voter, 1625 voters
1st: Beatriz Marinello: 1007 (62.0%) served full term, did not run for re-election
2nd: Tim Hanke: 886 (54.5%) resigned in August 2005, special election was held in 2006 which was won by Sam Sloan
3rd: Don Schultz: 867 (53.3%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2007)
4th: Joe Wagner: 704 (43.3%)
5th: Sam Sloan: 653 (40.2%)
6th: Mikel Petersen: 598 (36.8%)
7th: Steve Doyle: 161 (9.9%)
2004: Six candidates. Voters could have up to two votes, top 2 were elected to one-year terms (2004-05)
Total Votes Cast: 2411. Divided by 2 votes per voter, 1206
1st: Elizabeth Shaughnessy: 712 (59.1%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2005)
2nd: Randy Bauer: 687 (57.0%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2005)
3rd: Sam Sloan: 349 (29.0%)
4th: Mikhail Korenman: 305 (25.3%)
5th: David Huff: 197 (16.3%)
6th: Wayne Praeder: 161 (13.4%)
2005: Nine candidates. Voters could have up to four votes, top 4 were elected to four-year terms (2005-2009)
Total Votes Cast: 20711. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 5178 voters.
1st: Bill Goichberg: 3934 (76.0%) served full term, was re-elected in 2009
2nd: Gregory Shahade: 3694 (71.3%) resigned in January 2006, special election was held in 2006 which was won by Randy Hough
3rd: Joel Channing: 3358 (64.9%) resigned in April 2008, seat was vacant until 2009 election.
4th: Robert Tanner: 3179 (61.4%) resigned in December 2006, seat was added to 2007 election which was won by Jim Berry
5th: Elizabeth Shaughnessy: 1638 (31.6%)
6th: Randy Bauer: 1591 (30.7%)
7th: Steve Shutt: 1194 (23.1%)
8th: Sam Sloan: 1064 (20.5%)
9th: George John: 1059 (20.5%)
2006: Five candidates. Voters could have up to two votes. Top candidate would serve out Gregory Shahade's term (2006-09), 2nd placed candidate would serve out Tim Hanke's term (2006-07)
Total Votes Cast: 5460. Divided by 2 votes per voter, 2730 voters.
1st: Randy Hough: 1401 (51.3%) served full term, did not run for re-election
2nd: Sam Sloan: 1193 (43.7%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2007)
3rd: Mike Goodall: 1113 (40.8%)
4th: Grant Perks: 942 (34.5%)
5th: Ernest Schlich: 811 (29.7%)
2007: Ten candidates. Voters could have up to four votes. Top 3 candidates would serve four-year terms (2007-2011). 4th placed candidate would serve out Robert Tanner's term.
Total Votes Cast: 16803. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 4201 voters.
1st: Susan Polgar: 3004 (71.5%) expelled in August 2009, special election will be held in 2010 to determine her successor
2nd: Randy Bauer: 2325 (55.3%) currently serving
3rd: Paul Truong: 2056 (48.9%) expelled in August 2009, special election will be held in 2010 to determine his successor
4th: Jim Berry: 2026 (48.2%) served full term, re-elected in 2009
5th: Stephen Jones: 1774 (42.2%)
6th: Mikhail Korenman: 1648 (39.2%)
7th: Don Schultz: 1580 (37.6%)
8th: Joe Lux: 1231 (29.3%)
9th: Sam Sloan: 677 (16.1%)
10th: Mike Goodall: 482 (11.5%)
2009: Eleven candidates. Voters could have up to four votes. Top 4 candidates would serve four year terms (2009-2013).
Total votes cast: 16195. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 4049 voters.
1st: Jim Berry: 3030 (74.8%) currently serving
2nd: Bill Goichberg: 3014 (74.4%) currently serving
3rd: Ruth Haring: 2952 (72.9%) currently serving
4th: Mike Atkins: 2672 (66.0%) currently serving
5th: Mikhail Korenman: 822 (20.3%)
6th: Mike Neitman: 732 (18.1%)
7th: Eric Hecht: 717 (17.7%)
8th: Blas Lugo: 657 (16.2%)
9th: Sam Sloan: 588 (14.5%)
10th: Brian Lafferty: 576 (14.2%)
11th: Brian Mottershead: 435 (10.7%)
2003: Six candidates, plus Steve Doyle's write-in candidacy. Voters could have up to three votes, top 3 were elected to four-year terms (2003-2007)
Total Votes Cast: 4876. Divided by 3 votes per voter, 1625 voters
1st: Beatriz Marinello: 1007 (62.0%) served full term, did not run for re-election
2nd: Tim Hanke: 886 (54.5%) resigned in August 2005, special election was held in 2006 which was won by Sam Sloan
3rd: Don Schultz: 867 (53.3%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2007)
4th: Joe Wagner: 704 (43.3%)
5th: Sam Sloan: 653 (40.2%)
6th: Mikel Petersen: 598 (36.8%)
7th: Steve Doyle: 161 (9.9%)
2004: Six candidates. Voters could have up to two votes, top 2 were elected to one-year terms (2004-05)
Total Votes Cast: 2411. Divided by 2 votes per voter, 1206
1st: Elizabeth Shaughnessy: 712 (59.1%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2005)
2nd: Randy Bauer: 687 (57.0%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2005)
3rd: Sam Sloan: 349 (29.0%)
4th: Mikhail Korenman: 305 (25.3%)
5th: David Huff: 197 (16.3%)
6th: Wayne Praeder: 161 (13.4%)
2005: Nine candidates. Voters could have up to four votes, top 4 were elected to four-year terms (2005-2009)
Total Votes Cast: 20711. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 5178 voters.
1st: Bill Goichberg: 3934 (76.0%) served full term, was re-elected in 2009
2nd: Gregory Shahade: 3694 (71.3%) resigned in January 2006, special election was held in 2006 which was won by Randy Hough
3rd: Joel Channing: 3358 (64.9%) resigned in April 2008, seat was vacant until 2009 election.
4th: Robert Tanner: 3179 (61.4%) resigned in December 2006, seat was added to 2007 election which was won by Jim Berry
5th: Elizabeth Shaughnessy: 1638 (31.6%)
6th: Randy Bauer: 1591 (30.7%)
7th: Steve Shutt: 1194 (23.1%)
8th: Sam Sloan: 1064 (20.5%)
9th: George John: 1059 (20.5%)
2006: Five candidates. Voters could have up to two votes. Top candidate would serve out Gregory Shahade's term (2006-09), 2nd placed candidate would serve out Tim Hanke's term (2006-07)
Total Votes Cast: 5460. Divided by 2 votes per voter, 2730 voters.
1st: Randy Hough: 1401 (51.3%) served full term, did not run for re-election
2nd: Sam Sloan: 1193 (43.7%) served full term, was defeated in re-election bid (2007)
3rd: Mike Goodall: 1113 (40.8%)
4th: Grant Perks: 942 (34.5%)
5th: Ernest Schlich: 811 (29.7%)
2007: Ten candidates. Voters could have up to four votes. Top 3 candidates would serve four-year terms (2007-2011). 4th placed candidate would serve out Robert Tanner's term.
Total Votes Cast: 16803. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 4201 voters.
1st: Susan Polgar: 3004 (71.5%) expelled in August 2009, special election will be held in 2010 to determine her successor
2nd: Randy Bauer: 2325 (55.3%) currently serving
3rd: Paul Truong: 2056 (48.9%) expelled in August 2009, special election will be held in 2010 to determine his successor
4th: Jim Berry: 2026 (48.2%) served full term, re-elected in 2009
5th: Stephen Jones: 1774 (42.2%)
6th: Mikhail Korenman: 1648 (39.2%)
7th: Don Schultz: 1580 (37.6%)
8th: Joe Lux: 1231 (29.3%)
9th: Sam Sloan: 677 (16.1%)
10th: Mike Goodall: 482 (11.5%)
2009: Eleven candidates. Voters could have up to four votes. Top 4 candidates would serve four year terms (2009-2013).
Total votes cast: 16195. Divided by 4 votes per voter, 4049 voters.
1st: Jim Berry: 3030 (74.8%) currently serving
2nd: Bill Goichberg: 3014 (74.4%) currently serving
3rd: Ruth Haring: 2952 (72.9%) currently serving
4th: Mike Atkins: 2672 (66.0%) currently serving
5th: Mikhail Korenman: 822 (20.3%)
6th: Mike Neitman: 732 (18.1%)
7th: Eric Hecht: 717 (17.7%)
8th: Blas Lugo: 657 (16.2%)
9th: Sam Sloan: 588 (14.5%)
10th: Brian Lafferty: 576 (14.2%)
11th: Brian Mottershead: 435 (10.7%)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Carlsen wins World Blitz Championship!
Carlsen won with 31.0/42 (74%), with 28 wins and 6 draws! World Champion Anand was in 2nd place three points behind, in 3rd place was Sergey Karjakin with 25 points, and in 4th was the 14th world champion Vladimir Kramnik with 24.5.
More impressive is Carlsen's record against the other top players. Against players who scored 50% or better (the top 12), he had an amazing '+12' or 17.0/22
After a strong start, 12th world champion Anatoly Karpov faded down the stretch. Karpov was in 3rd place after day 1 (14 rounds), but by the end of the event had fallen to 16th place with 19 points.
Current women's world champion Alexandra Kosteniuk finished in 22nd and last place but actually played fairly well. She was the lowest rated player in the tournament by over 100 points, and well out-performed her rating. She scored wins against such Super GMs as Carlsen, Anand, Grischuk, Morozevich, Aronian, Gashimov, and Juidt Polgar.
on the organization of the tournament is that Veselin Topalov, the official challenger to the world champion and the current world's #1 rated player did not participate. It also would have been great if Kasparov had decided to play, which meant the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th undisputed world champions would have been playing. With Topalov and Kasparov playing, it would have been an even greater tournament!
More impressive is Carlsen's record against the other top players. Against players who scored 50% or better (the top 12), he had an amazing '+12' or 17.0/22
After a strong start, 12th world champion Anatoly Karpov faded down the stretch. Karpov was in 3rd place after day 1 (14 rounds), but by the end of the event had fallen to 16th place with 19 points.
Current women's world champion Alexandra Kosteniuk finished in 22nd and last place but actually played fairly well. She was the lowest rated player in the tournament by over 100 points, and well out-performed her rating. She scored wins against such Super GMs as Carlsen, Anand, Grischuk, Morozevich, Aronian, Gashimov, and Juidt Polgar.
on the organization of the tournament is that Veselin Topalov, the official challenger to the world champion and the current world's #1 rated player did not participate. It also would have been great if Kasparov had decided to play, which meant the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th undisputed world champions would have been playing. With Topalov and Kasparov playing, it would have been an even greater tournament!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
USCF Forums
Gary Walters has started a blog to help field questions about his 2010 candidacy for the Executive Board. I've also included the link on my "Blogs I follow" list on the right-hand side.
I've recently been taking a look at the USCF Forums (which is where I saw Gary's inital campaign statement). The largest forum is "USCF Issues", most of which is dedicated to the Polgar lawsuits but a few other topics are starting to trickle in. Some of the arguments on the forums can turn quite nasty, but it's worth taking a look, especially since there will be a new election early next year.
I've recently been taking a look at the USCF Forums (which is where I saw Gary's inital campaign statement). The largest forum is "USCF Issues", most of which is dedicated to the Polgar lawsuits but a few other topics are starting to trickle in. Some of the arguments on the forums can turn quite nasty, but it's worth taking a look, especially since there will be a new election early next year.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Running for USCF Executive Board: Gary L. Waters
Gary L. Walters has announced in the USCF forums that he is running for one of the two open spots on the USCF Executive Board and is now collecting the necessary signatures.
Chess Player
Walters is an A-player at OTB and a national master in correspondence chess. He is a finalist in the 2007 Electronic Knights championship, the 2009 USCF Absolute Championship and is about to start playing in the 18th United States Correspondence Championship final. On the international scene, he is currently playing in a preliminary section of the 33rd World Correspondence Championship.
Experience as a Director/Organizer
As far as I can tell from his personal statement or from the MSA website, Walters has no experience either directing or organizing tournaments. He states that his recent interest in USCF issues originated from the Polgar lawsuit against USCF and became active in the USCF Online Forums at that time.
"Real World" Experience
Walters does has an impressive resume. He holds a bachelor's degree from Auburn University, a master's degree from the Advanced Military Studies, and a law degree from Cornell Law School. He is a veteran of the Gulf War, and was awarded the Silver Star (the 3rd highest military decoration) as an infantry company commander. Currently he is a practicing litigator in Cleveland, OH.
Endorsements
Several prominent members of the USCF have already expressed support for Gary's candidacy, they include Bill Goichberg, Brian Mottershead, and Brian Lafferty (candidates in 2009), and Joe Lux (candidate in 2007).
My Thoughts
In elections in the past (and likely this one), I've preferred candidates who had organizing or directing experience. (In 2007 I voted for Polgar, Lux, Berry, and Bauer, in 2009 Atkins, Nietman, Berry, and Haring, so organizers got three out of my four votes each time around) The fact that Gary has little or no experience organizing tournaments either at the local or state level is a minus as far as I'm concerned. The counter to that is that he is a practicing lawyer, and with all of the lawsuits that the USCF is still (!) facing, it would be good to have a lawyer on the board. With no other members even unofficially throwing their hats into the ring ye, it's too early to tell who is a good candidate and who is not.
Chess Player
Walters is an A-player at OTB and a national master in correspondence chess. He is a finalist in the 2007 Electronic Knights championship, the 2009 USCF Absolute Championship and is about to start playing in the 18th United States Correspondence Championship final. On the international scene, he is currently playing in a preliminary section of the 33rd World Correspondence Championship.
Experience as a Director/Organizer
As far as I can tell from his personal statement or from the MSA website, Walters has no experience either directing or organizing tournaments. He states that his recent interest in USCF issues originated from the Polgar lawsuit against USCF and became active in the USCF Online Forums at that time.
"Real World" Experience
Walters does has an impressive resume. He holds a bachelor's degree from Auburn University, a master's degree from the Advanced Military Studies, and a law degree from Cornell Law School. He is a veteran of the Gulf War, and was awarded the Silver Star (the 3rd highest military decoration) as an infantry company commander. Currently he is a practicing litigator in Cleveland, OH.
Endorsements
Several prominent members of the USCF have already expressed support for Gary's candidacy, they include Bill Goichberg, Brian Mottershead, and Brian Lafferty (candidates in 2009), and Joe Lux (candidate in 2007).
My Thoughts
In elections in the past (and likely this one), I've preferred candidates who had organizing or directing experience. (In 2007 I voted for Polgar, Lux, Berry, and Bauer, in 2009 Atkins, Nietman, Berry, and Haring, so organizers got three out of my four votes each time around) The fact that Gary has little or no experience organizing tournaments either at the local or state level is a minus as far as I'm concerned. The counter to that is that he is a practicing lawyer, and with all of the lawsuits that the USCF is still (!) facing, it would be good to have a lawyer on the board. With no other members even unofficially throwing their hats into the ring ye, it's too early to tell who is a good candidate and who is not.
Red Hot Pawn
In fully half of my games on redhotpawn, I've won a piece in 15 or less moves. Hopefully I'll get some better competition once I move off the 1200 provisional rating they gave me (still have to finish three more games before I'm given a 'real' provisional rating.
My ICCF tournament will be of much higher competition I'm sure, and I'm already curious what my end result will be.
My ICCF tournament will be of much higher competition I'm sure, and I'm already curious what my end result will be.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
ICCF Open Tournament
My ICCF (International Correspondence Chess Federation Open Section started today. In my three white games, I'll be playing 1.d4 twice, 1.e4 once. In two of my black games I will be attempting the King's Indian against 1.d4. The third player has yet to make his first move, so I'll make the decision what to play once he does.
An ICCF 'Open' Tournament is the first of three 'promotion' tournaments that ICCF offers. All new players to ICCF are eligible to play in the lowest, "Open", section. Any player who wins the 7-player RR will become eligible for the next promotion section. The top promotion section, the Master Class Section, is an eleven-player round robin, and has the added bonus that the winner will qualify for a preliminary section of the World Championship.
Of the seven players in my section, three have only provisional ICCF ratings, two more have ratings that are around the starting rating of 1800, one player is much lower (1456), and one player is much higher (2190). It seems like the higher player would be more suited for a Master Class tournament or at least a Higher Class, but he has yet to win an Open Class, so he's stuck down here with the rest of us.
It'll probably take 5 or 5.5 points to win the section, I'll be happy with 3.5 (positive score).
An ICCF 'Open' Tournament is the first of three 'promotion' tournaments that ICCF offers. All new players to ICCF are eligible to play in the lowest, "Open", section. Any player who wins the 7-player RR will become eligible for the next promotion section. The top promotion section, the Master Class Section, is an eleven-player round robin, and has the added bonus that the winner will qualify for a preliminary section of the World Championship.
Of the seven players in my section, three have only provisional ICCF ratings, two more have ratings that are around the starting rating of 1800, one player is much lower (1456), and one player is much higher (2190). It seems like the higher player would be more suited for a Master Class tournament or at least a Higher Class, but he has yet to win an Open Class, so he's stuck down here with the rest of us.
It'll probably take 5 or 5.5 points to win the section, I'll be happy with 3.5 (positive score).
London Classic
One mistake from earlier, it appears that both Carlsen and Kramnik are participating in the London Classic on December 7th-15th which will probably be included in the January list. The rest of the field is rounded out by four of England's leading grandmasters (Nigel Short, Michael Adams, David Howell, and Luke McShane), China's 3rd ranked player, Ni Hua, and the US Champion, Hikaru Nakamura. Carlsen's not #1 yet!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Kramnik wins Tal Memorial, Carlsen new #1!
Kramnik held the draw against Ivanchuk and emerged in clear 1st place with 6.0/9. Anand actually lost with white against Aronian giving them both 5.0/9, but Carlsen managed to win with black against Leko, pushing him up to tie with Ivanchuk for 2nd-3rd place!
Chess Live Ratings now have Carlsen at 2805.7 (will round to 2806) and Topalov at 2805.1 (will round to 2805), meaning that if no more games are played, Carlsen will be the new #1 player in the January 2010 list at only 19 years of age.
Neither player is playing in the World Cup later this month, and I don't believe either of them have anything scheduled until Corus in January 2010, so I think Carlsen will be the new #1 in January!
Chess Live Ratings now have Carlsen at 2805.7 (will round to 2806) and Topalov at 2805.1 (will round to 2805), meaning that if no more games are played, Carlsen will be the new #1 player in the January 2010 list at only 19 years of age.
Neither player is playing in the World Cup later this month, and I don't believe either of them have anything scheduled until Corus in January 2010, so I think Carlsen will be the new #1 in January!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Red Hot Pawn
Red Hot Pawn is a free website for correspondence chess play. I have a free account there, which allows me to play six games at once, all of whom are rated between 1100 and 1500 of the server rating.
So far, I've already won one of my games (after my opponent just hung a knight and then a rook), and I'm up two pieces in another game. I've never reached a winning position this quickly in correspondence chess before so I'm a little disappointed with the level of competition on the site.
One problem is that everybody starts out as 1200--Provisional, which means nobody who's even intermediate-strong (1500+) wants to me right now. I'll have to wait until my first rating (after 5 games) before getting a high enough rating for other players to actually play me.
I have a free account, but one can play unlimited games on this site for $40/year. Since I'm planning on being an active correspondence player in USCF and ICCF in 2010, I'm sticking to my 6 games.
So far, I've already won one of my games (after my opponent just hung a knight and then a rook), and I'm up two pieces in another game. I've never reached a winning position this quickly in correspondence chess before so I'm a little disappointed with the level of competition on the site.
One problem is that everybody starts out as 1200--Provisional, which means nobody who's even intermediate-strong (1500+) wants to me right now. I'll have to wait until my first rating (after 5 games) before getting a high enough rating for other players to actually play me.
I have a free account, but one can play unlimited games on this site for $40/year. Since I'm planning on being an active correspondence player in USCF and ICCF in 2010, I'm sticking to my 6 games.
Tal Memorial Round 8
Chessbase has just announced the results of round 8. Magnus Carlsen has finally produced a win and is now in 4th place (4.5/8) with a round to go. It seems unlikely that he'll be able to win in the last round, as he has the black pieces against Peter Leko.
What's more interesting is that Vishy Anand and Vasilly Ivanchuk (in 2nd-3rd place with 5.0/8) both have the white pieces against Aronian and Kramnik respectively. Ivanchuk may go all out and try to beat Kramnik to win the tournament right here (less likely that Anand will take a risk, he's probably saving novelties for his upcoming match with Topalov). As far as the Candidates tournament goes, it's probably safest for Kramnik to just take a draw if he can and not to spoil his chance.
What's more interesting is that Vishy Anand and Vasilly Ivanchuk (in 2nd-3rd place with 5.0/8) both have the white pieces against Aronian and Kramnik respectively. Ivanchuk may go all out and try to beat Kramnik to win the tournament right here (less likely that Anand will take a risk, he's probably saving novelties for his upcoming match with Topalov). As far as the Candidates tournament goes, it's probably safest for Kramnik to just take a draw if he can and not to spoil his chance.
USCF Politics Website and 2010 USCF Elections
Blog of the day: USCF Politics
USCF Politics has been following Susan Polgar and Paul Truong's lawsuit against USCF for a little over a year. The primary officer, "Wick" is strongly against the lawsuits, however he allows Jack Le Moine, a Polgar supporter and former moderator on Polgar's website Chess Discussion, to post frequently, giving the blog two sides to the issue and making it a discussion rather than a rant.
The 2009 Elections showed that the vast majority of (voting) members strongly disagreed with Polgar's lawsuit. The three candidates that were endorsed by her finished 5th, 7th, and 8th out of 11 candidates (the top 4 won terms). Doesn't seem like too bad a thrashing unless you look at the numbers. Mike Atkins, the 4th place finisher had 2672 votes, Mikhail Korenman, the 5th place had 822 votes, less than a third of Atkins. Emboldened by these results, the executive board moved to suspend Polgar and Truong's memberships and expel them from the board, a decision that was supported by the Delegates at the US Open.
I was worried about the precedent that this set, that perhaps the USCF board would abuse this power, and feel that they could suspend membership of any person that they disagreed with, fortunately I think they handled this in the best possible way, and the Delegates could have overturned the decision if they had felt so inclined.
With Polgar and Truong gone, there are now two open spots. Hard to say who'll run (deadline to get the necessary signatures and pay the $250 filing fee is January 11th, but there's a few people I'm pretty sure we'll see.
Sam Sloan: The perpetual candidate. Has run for office in every race, ususally finishing in the bottom quarter of the field (8th/9 in 2005, 9th/10 in 2007, 9th/11 in 2009). However he managed to finish 2nd in the last special election in 2006 and won a 1-year term, so he may do it again in 2010. During his term, he was censured by the board for making accusations that were not backed up with any evidence, and several sources lamented that he may have cost USCF some sponsorship money either with his inappropriate website or his many, many online rants. Despite all this, I think Sam has an outside chance of winning a spot simply as a protest candidate
Brian Lafferty: Brian finished 10th/11 in 2009, although he likely would have finished higher had he not withdrawn a couple of months before the election in favor of the Goichberg slate. A cynic might suggest that in exchange for Brian withdrawing in 2009, Goichberg might endorse his candidacy in 2010 but I hope not. Brian's pretty new to the USCF (until recently had a provisional rating), and is not an experienced organizer or director.
Mikhail Korenman: Mikhail finished 6th/10 in 2007 and 5th 2009, so odds are that he'll try again in 2010. He could run on the idea that it'd be bad to have all seven members of the board in the same 'slate' or 'party'. I considered voting for Korenman in 2009 and I'd probably consider it again in 2010 depending on who the other candidates were. Then again he might be fed up with it all and end up not running.
It could get interesting.
USCF Politics has been following Susan Polgar and Paul Truong's lawsuit against USCF for a little over a year. The primary officer, "Wick" is strongly against the lawsuits, however he allows Jack Le Moine, a Polgar supporter and former moderator on Polgar's website Chess Discussion, to post frequently, giving the blog two sides to the issue and making it a discussion rather than a rant.
The 2009 Elections showed that the vast majority of (voting) members strongly disagreed with Polgar's lawsuit. The three candidates that were endorsed by her finished 5th, 7th, and 8th out of 11 candidates (the top 4 won terms). Doesn't seem like too bad a thrashing unless you look at the numbers. Mike Atkins, the 4th place finisher had 2672 votes, Mikhail Korenman, the 5th place had 822 votes, less than a third of Atkins. Emboldened by these results, the executive board moved to suspend Polgar and Truong's memberships and expel them from the board, a decision that was supported by the Delegates at the US Open.
I was worried about the precedent that this set, that perhaps the USCF board would abuse this power, and feel that they could suspend membership of any person that they disagreed with, fortunately I think they handled this in the best possible way, and the Delegates could have overturned the decision if they had felt so inclined.
With Polgar and Truong gone, there are now two open spots. Hard to say who'll run (deadline to get the necessary signatures and pay the $250 filing fee is January 11th, but there's a few people I'm pretty sure we'll see.
Sam Sloan: The perpetual candidate. Has run for office in every race, ususally finishing in the bottom quarter of the field (8th/9 in 2005, 9th/10 in 2007, 9th/11 in 2009). However he managed to finish 2nd in the last special election in 2006 and won a 1-year term, so he may do it again in 2010. During his term, he was censured by the board for making accusations that were not backed up with any evidence, and several sources lamented that he may have cost USCF some sponsorship money either with his inappropriate website or his many, many online rants. Despite all this, I think Sam has an outside chance of winning a spot simply as a protest candidate
Brian Lafferty: Brian finished 10th/11 in 2009, although he likely would have finished higher had he not withdrawn a couple of months before the election in favor of the Goichberg slate. A cynic might suggest that in exchange for Brian withdrawing in 2009, Goichberg might endorse his candidacy in 2010 but I hope not. Brian's pretty new to the USCF (until recently had a provisional rating), and is not an experienced organizer or director.
Mikhail Korenman: Mikhail finished 6th/10 in 2007 and 5th 2009, so odds are that he'll try again in 2010. He could run on the idea that it'd be bad to have all seven members of the board in the same 'slate' or 'party'. I considered voting for Korenman in 2009 and I'd probably consider it again in 2010 depending on who the other candidates were. Then again he might be fed up with it all and end up not running.
It could get interesting.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tal Memorial and World Championship Cycle
The very strong Tal Memorial has finished seven rounds now, and former world champion Vladimir Kramnik is in the lead with 5.0/7. Just a half point behind are current world champion Vishy Anand and Vassily Ivanchuk.
After his 3000+ performance at Nanjing, Mangus Carlsen has been a bit of a disappointment with seven draws so far, but if he manages to beat one of his last two opponents, Peter Leko or Rusian Ponomariov, he'll at least survive the tournament with his 2800 rating intact.
The high number of draws (74%) might be explained by the importance of rating to the top players in the world given that two spots in the 2010 Candidates tournament will be awarded on basis of rating alone (averaged between July 2009 and January 2010).
The eight candidates will be:
Top two players from FIDE Grand Prix:
Levon Aronian: 500 points, one event remaining
Teimour Radjabov: 363.33 points, one event remaining
Alexander Grischuk: 363.33 points, no events remaining
Wang Yue: 353.33 points, one event remaining
2009 World Cup Winner:
Loser of 2009 Candidates Match: Gata Kamsky
Loser of 2009 World Championship Match: Vishy Anand or Veselin Topalov
Top 2 Players in Rating, July 09, (Current)
Magnus Carlsen: 2772 (2797) AVG = 2784.5 (1)
Dimitry Jakovenko: 2760 (2725) AVG = 2742.5 (8)
Vladimir Kramnik: 2759 (2787) AVG = 2773 (2)
Peter Leko: 2756 (2743) AVG = 2749.5 (5)
Teimour Radjabov: 2756 (2738) AVG = 2747 (7)
Boris Gelfand: 2755 (2758) AVG = 2756.5 (3)
Alexander Morozevich: 2751 (2747) AVG = 2749 (6)
Vugar Gashimov: 2740 (2763) AVG = 2751.5 (4)
Nomination of Organizer (min 2700 FIDE)
A likely organizer of the Candidates tournament is China (they've recently taken interest in high-profile tournaments). If they win the bid, Yue Wang will likely be the nominee (unless Wang manages to get the second spot in the FIDE grand prix or win the 2009 World Cup)
So here's my guess for the eight spots (the World Cup is such a crap-shoot I'm not even going to seriously attempt to guess that.
Vishy Anand/Veselin Topalov
Gata Kamsky
Levon Aronian
Teimour Radjabov
Magnus Carlsen
Vladimir Kramnik
Yue Wang
Winner of 2009 World Cup.
Quite a strong tournament, which is now sounding like a knock-out event rather than a double-round robin, with quarter-finals and semi-finals matches of 4 games each, and the final a 6 game match.
It's a far from ideal system, but it's much better than having the whole world championship on a knock-out tournament.
After his 3000+ performance at Nanjing, Mangus Carlsen has been a bit of a disappointment with seven draws so far, but if he manages to beat one of his last two opponents, Peter Leko or Rusian Ponomariov, he'll at least survive the tournament with his 2800 rating intact.
The high number of draws (74%) might be explained by the importance of rating to the top players in the world given that two spots in the 2010 Candidates tournament will be awarded on basis of rating alone (averaged between July 2009 and January 2010).
The eight candidates will be:
Top two players from FIDE Grand Prix:
Levon Aronian: 500 points, one event remaining
Teimour Radjabov: 363.33 points, one event remaining
Alexander Grischuk: 363.33 points, no events remaining
Wang Yue: 353.33 points, one event remaining
2009 World Cup Winner:
Loser of 2009 Candidates Match: Gata Kamsky
Loser of 2009 World Championship Match: Vishy Anand or Veselin Topalov
Top 2 Players in Rating, July 09, (Current)
Magnus Carlsen: 2772 (2797) AVG = 2784.5 (1)
Dimitry Jakovenko: 2760 (2725) AVG = 2742.5 (8)
Vladimir Kramnik: 2759 (2787) AVG = 2773 (2)
Peter Leko: 2756 (2743) AVG = 2749.5 (5)
Teimour Radjabov: 2756 (2738) AVG = 2747 (7)
Boris Gelfand: 2755 (2758) AVG = 2756.5 (3)
Alexander Morozevich: 2751 (2747) AVG = 2749 (6)
Vugar Gashimov: 2740 (2763) AVG = 2751.5 (4)
Nomination of Organizer (min 2700 FIDE)
A likely organizer of the Candidates tournament is China (they've recently taken interest in high-profile tournaments). If they win the bid, Yue Wang will likely be the nominee (unless Wang manages to get the second spot in the FIDE grand prix or win the 2009 World Cup)
So here's my guess for the eight spots (the World Cup is such a crap-shoot I'm not even going to seriously attempt to guess that.
Vishy Anand/Veselin Topalov
Gata Kamsky
Levon Aronian
Teimour Radjabov
Magnus Carlsen
Vladimir Kramnik
Yue Wang
Winner of 2009 World Cup.
Quite a strong tournament, which is now sounding like a knock-out event rather than a double-round robin, with quarter-finals and semi-finals matches of 4 games each, and the final a 6 game match.
It's a far from ideal system, but it's much better than having the whole world championship on a knock-out tournament.
Getting to 2000, A fellow A-player's blog
Ivan Wijetunge is on a personal quest to reach the 2000 USCF mark, which would make him a USCF expert. At the HB Global Challenge in May 2005, Ivan tied for 3rd-6th in the U1800 section, giving him a permanent rating floor at 1800. Shortly after that performance, Ivan created his blog, chronicling his quest to become an expert. So far he's been unsuccesful and has not yet breached 1900, but he is an active player and an active blogger (approximately 50 tournaments in the past 18 months).
Ivan and I played once, at the 2006 Iowa Open, Round 5.
White: Klaus Johnson (1677)
Black: Ivan Wijectunge (1800)
September 17th 2006, Iowa Open Round 5.
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bd3 b5?
Fritz already gives a pawn advantage to White with this move. In his blog, Ivan suggested 6...Bg4 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nc6 where white can claim only an edge with either 9. O-O or 9. c3
7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nc6? 9.0-0?
White could have quickly won the game with 9. Bf4! (if 9...Qxf4?? 10. Bxc6+ and 11. Bxa8).
9...Bb7 10.c3 Na5 11.Qc2 e6 12.Ne5 c5 13.Bf4! Qb6 14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.b4! (winning a piece)
15...Bxf2+? 16.Rxf2 Nc6 17.Nxf7!
Fritz gives a +9 advantage to me with this move and although I did not play the best moves after this, the game was quickly over.
17...Rf8 18.Nd6+ Ke7 19.Qd2 Rad8 20.Bg5+ Rf6 21.Bxf6+ gxf6 22.Qf4 Rxd6 23.Qxf6+ Kd7 24.Kh1 Ne7 25.Bxb7 Qxb7 26.Qg7 Qd5 27.Raf1 Qd1 28.h3 1-0
This win gave me 3.0/5 for the tournament, the first (and only) time I've had a positive score in a state championship. My rating also gained some sixty points and pushed it for the first time over 1700.
Ivan and I played once, at the 2006 Iowa Open, Round 5.
White: Klaus Johnson (1677)
Black: Ivan Wijectunge (1800)
September 17th 2006, Iowa Open Round 5.
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Bd3 b5?
Fritz already gives a pawn advantage to White with this move. In his blog, Ivan suggested 6...Bg4 7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nc6 where white can claim only an edge with either 9. O-O or 9. c3
7.Ne4 Nxe4 8.Bxe4 Nc6? 9.0-0?
White could have quickly won the game with 9. Bf4! (if 9...Qxf4?? 10. Bxc6+ and 11. Bxa8).
9...Bb7 10.c3 Na5 11.Qc2 e6 12.Ne5 c5 13.Bf4! Qb6 14.dxc5 Bxc5 15.b4! (winning a piece)
15...Bxf2+? 16.Rxf2 Nc6 17.Nxf7!
Fritz gives a +9 advantage to me with this move and although I did not play the best moves after this, the game was quickly over.
17...Rf8 18.Nd6+ Ke7 19.Qd2 Rad8 20.Bg5+ Rf6 21.Bxf6+ gxf6 22.Qf4 Rxd6 23.Qxf6+ Kd7 24.Kh1 Ne7 25.Bxb7 Qxb7 26.Qg7 Qd5 27.Raf1 Qd1 28.h3 1-0
This win gave me 3.0/5 for the tournament, the first (and only) time I've had a positive score in a state championship. My rating also gained some sixty points and pushed it for the first time over 1700.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Twelve weeks without a rated game
After the sprint that was 2008-2009, this break is a welcome change. I haven't played any rated chess since the Super Saturday Tournament back in August 15th when I still lived in Colorado, my last regular rated game was a few days before that, a draw against Ted Doykos in my last round of the Boulder Club Championship.
Playing so many games in a year definitely benefited my chess, there were several accomplishments that I could be proud of throughout the year:
Gained nearly 100 USCF rating points (1762 to 1858)
Drew my first master: FM Renard Anderson, Loveland Open, Rd 1
Broke 1800 rating for the first time: November 22nd 2008
4th Al Ufer Memorial, Bronze 3.0/4: January 3rd 2009
CU Rapid XI, Bronze 3.0/4: May 9th 2009
Claimed my second expert scalp: Jeffrey Csima, 2009 Pueblo Open, Rd 4.
2009 Pueblo Open, Silver 4.0/5: June 6th 2009
Claimed my first master scalp: FM Jake Kleiman, US Open, Rd 1
2009 Boulder Club Championship, Bronze 4.0/7: August 26th 2009.
For the break, January 1st 2010 sounds like a good time to start playing again. That's coming up.
Playing so many games in a year definitely benefited my chess, there were several accomplishments that I could be proud of throughout the year:
Gained nearly 100 USCF rating points (1762 to 1858)
Drew my first master: FM Renard Anderson, Loveland Open, Rd 1
Broke 1800 rating for the first time: November 22nd 2008
4th Al Ufer Memorial, Bronze 3.0/4: January 3rd 2009
CU Rapid XI, Bronze 3.0/4: May 9th 2009
Claimed my second expert scalp: Jeffrey Csima, 2009 Pueblo Open, Rd 4.
2009 Pueblo Open, Silver 4.0/5: June 6th 2009
Claimed my first master scalp: FM Jake Kleiman, US Open, Rd 1
2009 Boulder Club Championship, Bronze 4.0/7: August 26th 2009.
For the break, January 1st 2010 sounds like a good time to start playing again. That's coming up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)