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!)
Sunday, November 29, 2009
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)