NM Chris Williams is writing a thesis comparing the effects of various chemical stimulants on chess performance.
WFM Abby Marshall beat GM Hikaru Nakamura in the bughouse tournament. I challenge her to a blogoff.
FM Andrei Zaremba: serious
FM Andrei Zaremba: silly
NM Laura Ross: tea drinker
GM Roman Dzinzdichashvili: game face
FM William Kelleher: frightened of me?
He's the little g: five-year-old Stephen Fanning, whose teammates included GM Zviad Izoria, GM Eugene Perelshteyn, and GM Roman Dzindzichashvili. I want to mention that I think the argument for banning stacked teams like GGGg is completely ridiculous. It's basically saying organizers should ban players for being too good at chess, because their presence is unfair to patzers. I heard this argument a few times during the last round and I had to walk away because it seemed so embarrasing and pathetic. Why don't people think it's awesome that three grandmasters are willing to spend their weekend playing 1800s and experts for no prize money, just for fun?
My student, Alexis Paredes, and cool shadows.
GM Eugene Perelshteyn, NM Chris Williams, GM Zviad Izoria in a warm embrace.
189 comments:
Nice photos.
If those Bughouse dudes are ever in Chicago they should try to get together with Ilan Meerovich and Dan McNally.
My problem with the 3Gs (or "Three Tenors" as Kenilworthian blogger Michael Goeller initially tagged them) has less to do with the GMs than with their fourth board - and specifically, his rating that was used to calculate their team average.
I agree it wouldn't be right to penalize GMs (or anybody else) for being "too good"...or even for getting paid to play (which is rumored to be the case).
But, the rules do state that every team's average rating must be under 2200. To maintain the integrity of that rule, I'd suggest a slight rule change that is different from, and superior to, the other "stacked" team rules that others are advocating.
Having a team of three pros who are not only above 2200 but WAY above 2200 plays havoc with the existing "maximum team average" requirement. Specifically, it's the adorable 5-year old's rating (he was on the wall chart at 178) that enables them to do that.
More than that - did you know that the GGGg team was not only eligible to enter ...they were even eligible for a CLASS prize! They were on the wall chart at 2017 - their average team rating, including Fanning at 178. (If you had thought of that, Elizabeth, then I bet you would have been less dismissive of the critics. Now that I've made you aware of it, I'm looking forward to see how you will modify your view.)
Since there is no practical difference (in terms of over-the-board results) between 178 and 678 or 878, I suggest that in this and other team events, a minimum figure should be used for every board for the purposes of calculating each team's average rating. Perhaps apply a 1000 minimum to every member on "strong teams" (those whose first two boards average over 2400, or maybe even over 2200), and a 600 minimum to everyone else. (If they have class prizes for rating classes below 600, then obviously a lower minimum would have to be used...or perhaps no minimum at all for teams whose top two boards were below a certain number...but then you'd get three different minimums, which would eliminate the simplicity that is the other main benefit of my proposed minimum-rating rule.)
Jon Jacobs, Rook-N-Roll Forever
I sort of agree that instituting some kind of 1000 minimum on Board 4 for teams rated above a certain number makes sense. Using a 100 rated player on Board 4 is simply a manipulation of the oddities of the rating system.
Personally, I don't really care about the 3 GMs team, especially since one of them is a Boston Blitzer :). I go to USATE to see some GMs, hang out, drink beer, and play chess. This year, we had Denys Shmelov on our team which instantly gave us some street cred. We even spent a round behind the ropes, which has been personal goal since I started going.
I also met Elizabeth Vicary, another personal goal achieved! :)
Maybe next year there will be a few more 3 GM teams, and we'll get a chance to watch more great games.
-Matt
I have to object. There's an enormous difference between 178 and 678. It's a completely different class of player.
Let's keep in mind that the class prize we are talking about here is a plaque and a couple cheap clocks. Is that really more important than 18 people getting to play grandmasters and 1300 people getting to watch those games?
I like seeing the grandmasters playing, but I think it's unfair to the 4th board of the opponent's team. Everyone comes to play chess. Playing a 5 year old 178 is not chess. If I had been on board four and had to play someone of that level I'd be very annoyed.
I've played my share of little kids rated 500 to 900 in this tournament. It happens especially when you play on a weak team.
When you're playing 4th board on a strong team, you expect to play some tough games especially if your team is doing well and playing behind the ropes.
I played 4th board on a team with an average rating of 2150 one year. It was probably one of my hardest USATE because of the caliber of players of the opponent's teams. That was a great experience. I would have been disappointed to have a game that lasted 7 moves.
I've got an idea! Let's ban everyone under 1000 from playing chess! Or maybe 1500 would be better?!
Also people over 2500.
Also, Greg, I'm not sure you can logically advocate for a 1000 minimum on fourth board when you have instituted a 2590 maximum averaged-in rating in the USCL. Aren't you creating (at the other end of the rating scale) the very effect you are arguing should be compensated for?
To clarify/elaborate my earlier comment, my objection isn't to the GMs or even the 5-year old 178-player being allowed to play on a team. It's to what Greg Shahade eloquently termed a "manipulation of the oddities of the rating system."
Having a rating that low makes someone especially desirable as a teammate, for any team. After all, you could just as well field a 800-player on 4th board, who, on a strong team, would still be guaranteed to lose all his games. I can see why a 1400 or 1600 player (especially if significantly underrated and/or improving) should be a very desirable invite for a strong team's 4th board. But the logic of defining team-average ratings in such a way that makes a 178 player a huge, rare asset to any team (because of the extra 200-points-per-board "bonus" it gives their team average rating - why that's almost a whole rating class! - compared with a 1000-rated 4th board), simply escapes me.
Regarding the comment that it's more important to have GM players and great games than to have rules that make sense, and besides, there are no money prizes....that attitude of "chill out, this isn't a serious competition," strikes me as eerily reminiscent of the argument made by the team of 2200-rated babies (I'd use a stronger word but not on a blog frequented by women and children) that figured in a final-round rule-breaking episode I was a party to. I haven't the time or space to go into detail here, and since I don't have my own blog, I won't publish it directly. But several people already know the details...starting with the individual whose picture appears at the beginning of this or an adjacent blog item. In a nutshell, the argument they made to the TD was, "What's all this fuss about touch-move? We just came to play chess, so just leave us alone."
Finally, although I've made clear that my argument has nothing to do with people who feel slighted at having to play a 178-rated opponent, it's worth noting that I've been told (by Nick Conticello, I think - who's pretty knowledgeable about directing rules, right, Elizabeth?) that only people who can consistently make legal moves are allowed to play in rated events. According to comments on another blog from someone who claimed to have faced him, Steven Fanning was repeatedly making illegal moves. So, there could be a rules problem there, too.
Jon Jacobs, Rook-N-Roll Forever
Considering there is no money prize, I am not sure of the GMs motive for wanting to do this. Perhaps Roman feels that if he beats up on 2100s the entire tournament, he'll sell more DVDs. But oh well, it is there choice.
their*
Liz: I know you were trying to be absurb, but actually, a minimum rating standard makes a lot of sense. Below a certain level, and we could argue where exactly that level should be, what business do you have playing in a serious tournament anyway?
I would argue that minimum standard would include keeping notation, knowing legal vs. illegal moves, being able to recognize checkmate, able to demonstarte how to mate Q+K vs K.,etc
I would not outright ban people from participating, but I would advocate a minimum rating of 1200 or whatever - similar to FIDE.
There's a big difference between saying people should know how the pieces move before they start playing in tournaments and instituting a minimum rating of 1200. Why shouldn't an 800 have a rating? Does it hurt anybody? What's the point in discouraging anyone from playing chess?
Hi.
Greg, I bet you wouldn't mind playing texas holdem vs a 5 year old.
If someone brings a team that has JUST ONE super GM and can win on board 1, Stephen's team won't win the tournament. It makes no sense whatsoever to discourage GMs to play in events with amateurs because the winners are the amateurs who might otherwise never get the chance to play with a Grandmaster. The other side of someone on board 4 playing Stephen, is what I got when I asked Romans board 3 first round opponent if he has ever play a GM before. He said I played a master once. He was very happy to have a chance in a lifetime to play a GM.
Next the idea that you should ban little kids (under 1000) from playing in the event is ridiculous. Many of the people playing are there solely to play with their kids.
Roman for one was only at the tournament because Roman wanted to play with Stephen who he has worked with daily for 2 years. He was going to do it no matter what the team configuration or the rules about prizes. He called Steve Doyle months before to make sure it was not violating the spirit of the event. Steve explained the rules exactly and thought it was ok. Only then did Roman talk to Zviad who is from Romans hometown about also playing. As a side note Roman's team had 900 points to spare and could have easily played with stephens older brother, also a roman student, who was rated 800 and beat a 1400 in the tournament on another team.
I think the real issue comes from the statistical problem with USCF ratings points being more valuable at higher rating levels, so the probability of someone 2300 beating someone 2500 is much lower than it is for someone 1200 to beat someone 1400. That In my opinion is at the root of all feelings that some team configurations can be unfair.
Lastly "Playing a 5 year old 178 is not chess."
Is just flat wrong. Stephen can beat most casual players, and his rating reflects a very limited tournament history.
btw for what it's worth, despite my arguments, I really don't care if 3 GM's and a 100 player want to play. I don't think it's that big a deal. All you need to do to draw the match or for this team to be virtually eliminated from serious first place contention is have one players beat one GM out of 18 games. It's been done before.
Also I don't think the team itself did anything wrong. Also I think they could have even used someone rated much higher, like 700 or so? There are some 600s and 700s out there who are capable of beating the 1400+ players who may inhabit some other strong teams.
Elizabeth - I can't agree with your original assertion that disliking the 3 GM team is "ridiculous". Most of the suggested rules/bans seem arbitrary (and if anyone really wanted to ban players rated under 1000, I think that would be a terrible rule) but then again limiting teams' overall rating to 2200 is also arbitrary. I don't think Dzindzi's team did anything unethical at all - those particular arguments are silly. But it's not out of the question if a majority of people should agree "since we're calling it 'amateur', let's arrange it so that no more than half of a team's players can be of (roughly) professional strength".
Ok, i have an issue with what happened, I was on board 4 of the team that played gggg in the last round......it was ridiculous, it ruins the spirit of the tournament when teams like that enter....and the gm's were paid to play for the team.....we all go to the USATE to play in a tournament for pride purposes....and my team was beasting...we were 5-0....and we had to play a stacked team in the last round....my game ended up being 7 moves....I MATED HIM IN 7 MOVES.....I didn't come to USATE to play games like that all the way from college in Ann Arbor (i had to miss class on Monday) and to think that my team lost to a shitty team like that who doesn't care about the pride of the tournament one bit
Rohde's comment about the GM's being paid to play brings up a good point. I don't know if GGGg were paid, but in the USATW someone paid a GM and IM to play on his team. Now if there was no anti-stacking rule, he could have paid another IM to play on his team and essentially have bought the tournament. Luckily there was such a rule and the team could only manage a draw in a couple of their rounds, preventing them from winning. Another point no one has brought up is what happens at the USAT playoffs? Can this team participate? The other regions have the 1000 rule, so it would be unfair if they could play since it is impossible to field such a team at the other regions. I'm a little biased considering my team is in the USAT playoffs, but I talked to people at the USATW who were really pissed off with this, so its not just me.
Danny,
Try to be a little more egocentric while you are being completely hypocritical. Amazing how you don't remember playing with your father in the USAT when you were the same age. You were so good though, that your opponents were privilaged to play you.
Its true my 5 year old played E4 E5 BC4 BC5 QH5 G6... I have seen 2100 players fall into the same trap and lose their rook. I have also seen my 5 year old execute the same trap. I guess that means you played like a 5 year old.
my question is:
if Roman has been working with the child for over two years on a daily basis as the father claims....why is he still rated 100? A refund is in order.
did you pay them to play sir? if you did....ur a cheater....and if your son has been working with roman for two years daily...how is he still that bad.....and its an embarrassment that a game on board 1 in the last round is like that....and you wasted my time in new jersey...when i had to miss school in Michigan to go.....and don't ever refer to my father in anything...no one ever paid him to play in this tournament....and i didn't play with him till I was 13....when i was a solid player...so you have nothing to say to me sir
To Mr. Fanning: If your kid checkmates the neighbor's dog in 3 moves then loses to somebody who knows how to play chess in a few moves who played like who? Your analogy makes no sense and it is pretty pathetic that you have no respect for other players who attend this tournament from everywhere to have fun and COMPETE. I mean the 3 GMs could've won the tournament WITHOUT a board 4 just had like a forfeit, what does your kid get out of going 0-6 in 5 minutes game after game. Maybe you wanted publicity but for what? You know maybe his rating will go up some if you make him play people near his rating.
mr fanning....who are you to talk to me..... jeff is right....your analogy simply doesn't make sense....because you don't know anything about the chess world and how this tournament is about pride and fun...not money...thats why you DONT see SUPER TEAMS....WHAT IS THERE TO PLAY FOR??? a god damn clock? ur a total joke
OK guys,
I never thought I'd reply to something like this, but this is patently absurd.
It's unreal how many people are complaining about the GGGg team. OH NO THE GRANDMASTERS AND THE LITTLE KID ROBBED ME AND MY BUDDIES OF FAME AND GLORY IN CHESS LIFE.
This is insanely childish. Those of you criticizing the five-year old kid, you must feel big. Of course he loses some games in eight moves, HE'S FIVE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. When I was five my big project was trying to surpass my friend in age.
Danny, if you'd like to leave Ann Arbor (and oh no, miss class!) to play chess, that's great. A friend of mine used to fly from Boston to NYC (!) after class as a college kid to play the New York Masters. But the self-important tone is fairly ridiculous. OH NO AN A PLAYER FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HAD TO PLAY A LITTLE KID WHILE HE WAS MISSING SCHOOL. You get the idea.
Anyways, everybody needs to relax a little. The GGGg team acted within the rules, for no tangible financial or professional gain. This sort of hysteria should be reserved for 2700+ Grandmasters complaining about being unfairly excluded from the world championship cycle.
Take care,
Matan Prilleltensky
Interesting debate -- but I thought there simply was a rule against the difference between any two boards on a team being over 1000 points? Isn't there a rule against precisely this situation?
To wit, I don't much care either if that team played as such, and I agree that it's mad cool to see the likes of Izoria and Dzindzi and Perelshteyn playing in Jersey. But if there is a rule against their particular team arrangement, then they prolly shouldn't have been allowed as such. No?
Sorry hubdiggs. As mentioned earlier, it is called manipulating the oddities of the rating system.
And Elizabeth, there certainly is a difference in strength between a 178 and a 678. However, this difference is negligible when facing 1800+s the entire tournament.
You also say that 18 people they played on different teams) get to play GMs that normally wouldn't have. Cool! 18 people would get that same chance if they were on different teams.
And you say, "Let's keep in mind that the class prize we are talking about here is a plaque and a couple cheap clocks."
Oh right! Because everyone wants to win the USATE or the USATE class prize flor the plaque and clocks. How about the pride and other intangibles?
"Is that really more important than 18 people getting to play grandmasters and 1300 people getting to watch those games?"
Umm, I for one would much rather the plaque, cheap clock, and feeling of self accomplishment..and I doubt that I am the only one. Besides, most of the games weren't quality anyway...as these GMs were beating up regular masters the entire tournament...and Roman experts and weaker, lol
Matan, that is exactly what the GGGg team did. Winning the USATE is a pretty cool accomplishment(unless your team consists of three GMs), so cut the sarcasm. Perhaps you don't give a damn about winning such an event, but some people do.
Don't get me wrong; I know that winning USATE is a wonderful achievement. I've certainly never won a major tournament, so far be it from me to diminish the US Amateur Team.
My sarcasm was not directed at generic participants fighting to win the tournament, but at the righteous indignation on display from those who were beaten by a legitimate, legal team.
Although I take the opposing view, I can understand people thinking the GGGg team may have somewhat violated the spirit of the rules. One might even say that reasonable people can disagree! Now that I look over the comments, that's what people were (for the most part) doing.
But this nonsense from a select few, picking on a five year old and his father, is an embarassing reflection on college age chessplayers. My (admittedly sarcastic) post was directed at that.
Matan Prilleltensky
think outside the box people. the rating itself discourages people from playing, and is a major contributor to people dropping out over time. just ask greg. and, we all know scholastic chess is a scam anyway. it'n nota bout the cehss, but rather the cash.
Very interesting discussion. I really don't like to be the arbiter of niceness, but please let's be careful what you say about the kid, because while I doubt he reads my blog (yet), I will feel compelled to delete future posts that use him as a target or insult him for being five. I'd much prefer not to have to start censoring. Thanks.
I just feel essentially that it's antithetical to the spirit of chess to complain it is unfair that stronger players are better than you and allowed to play chess against you. In calling this argument ridiculous, I was (and am) referring to the way it sounds: "Oh don't make me compete against people who have this huge unfair advantage of being smarter and more skillful than me." Ok, the tournament has the word amateur in it's name, but what that means is clearly defined (average rating under 2200) and fundamentally it's a chess tournament.
(Personally, I hope Izoria, Perelshteyn and Dzinzdi they were paid something because they are grandmasters and consequently deserve it, but I certainly don't think it's my business to enquire or speculate.)
And complaining about an easy pairing is silly. It sounds better because you didn't just lose a game, but it's equally nonsensical. Your opponent has just as much right to exist and play in the tournament as you do.
Danny wtf are you talking about, you need to chill out? The team that they used is completely and 100% legal (as it is to pay players to play on your team, as this has been happening for years) you have no right to criticize them, you can criticize the rules if you like.
It's not their problem that they followed the rules and you had to play someone that you deemed too weak for you.
As I understand it, the rules in one USAT region are different from another? That isn't right.
The anti-stacked-team rule should either be in effect in all regions or in none.
The GGGg team in question was within the (local) rules and although there was the faint aroma of unpleasantness it's really necessary to address the rules divergence.
An anti-stacked-team rule would obviously eliminate the unpleasantness and the powers-that-be should agree to unify all the regions' rules.
Why is it that no one's addressed my proposal, which would primarily correct what Greg called the "oddities of the rating system" (that makes a 178 a more desirable teammate than a 678 even though their mathematically expected result on board 4 is an identical 0-6), WITHOUT BANNING EITHER GMs OR 178-RATED FIVE-YEAR OLDS?
Aside to John Fanning: The only person on this whole thread who proposed banning little kids rated under 1000 from playing was Elizabeth - and her statement was meant to be ironic.
I have a hunch that some of the debate here stems from confusion about just what it is that makes the GGGg lineup objectionable. Some people (not me) complain about too many GMs. Others (also not me) complain about having to play a kid who doesn't belong in a rated tournament. And still others complain that the GMs may have been paid by the elder Mr. Fanning (an unconfirmed rumor, at this point).
Still, none of those things is against the rules (excepting the possibility that the kid's father or coach really did violate the rules by entering him in a rated tournement if unable to consistently make legal moves - which someone who claimed to be an opponent of his asserted on another blog).
But what should grate on everyone's sensibilities - in other words, something I would think all chess players would agree IS objectionable - is that the team average rating as currently defined, makes it a virtue for the 4th board to have the lowest possible rating, without regard to playing strength.
As noted, in a competitive context (i.e., a "real" tournament, not one restricted to the scholastic beginners that put bread on Elizabeth's table), there is no practical difference between a 178, a 678 or a 878.
Yet, the 178 is far more desirable as a teammate. Not the way a 1300 would be desirable to many teams, because he might be underrated and surprise some higher opponents ... but simply because his ridiculous rating subtracts points from the team average.
That's why my recommendation of applying a minimum figure for each board when computing team averages, eliminates what may be the one feature of the present rules that we can all agree doesn't smell right. It wouldn't prevent or discourage GMs or very low-rated 5-year olds from playing, even on the same team. All it would discourage is manipulation of the oddities of the rating system.
John Fanning himself confessed in this thread that the GGGg team "had 900 points to spare." (In fact, they had a little over 700 points to spare, based on what I saw on the wall chart.) In terms of average rating, they were actually UNDERDOGS in many of their matches - and would have been against my team, had we faced them. As I pointed out earlier, their average rating shown on the wall chart was 2017. THEY WERE ELIGIBLE FOR A CLASS PRIZE (under-2100).
As with individual tournaments, the rules should be framed in a way that reward strength - including being underrated - rather than making it a rare, highly prized asset to simply have a ridiculously low rating. (Inter alia, a team that averaged in the 1500s gave my much higher rated team a tough struggle. Although we won 3.5-0.5, the outcome - including my own game against a 1564 player - was much closer than the score indicates.)
Jon Jacobs, Rook-N-Roll Forever
I do not have a problem with the 3 GMs being on one team. However, the East team should not be able to participate in the playoffs when the other 3 regions do not have the advantage of fielding such a team due to the rules. Do not kid yourself for one minute - it is a big advantage to field a team of 3 GMs, especially with Izoria on board 1. Why should they be allowed to participate in the playoffs?
A final point: There should be no attacks on a little kid. It is unacceptable.
I do wonder who came up with this whole idea for the team. If it was the father's idea I do think it is a little weird. Does the Dad think the victory somehow reflects positively on himself or his child? Could the child have possibly enjoyed getting beaten over and over?
what I was trying to say all along is that this team ruins the spirit of amateur, people go to this tournament for the fun and pride of winning, the gm's don't get this idea....having one gm is fine, but when gm's are on board 3 killing experts are worse, where's the fun in that.....I do understand that they were "under the average", but these gm's don't understand the whole idea of why this tournament is so popular
Mr. Rhode,
The 2.5-1.5 score of your team's final match negates your argument.
Jon Jacobs puts it perfectly. Well said, sir.
One GM per team would still allow a bunch of people to play a GM for the first time.
I love that GMs can compete in the Amateur Team tournament, but, when the GMs are all put on one team, it is suddenly like the New England Patriots playing in the Rose Bowl. Fine, to extend the analogy imagine the Patriots put a couple of high school kickers on their team so they can qualify for the Rose Bowl's requirements. That just doesn't seem right (and exactly the kind of rule manipulation that Bill Belicheck gets hated for).
So what is wrong here are the rules of the tournament. What if we require the median and the mean to both be below 2200? Or simply add the 1000 point rule like in other regions?
3GMs should be a one off for this kind of event.
Vicary: "I want to mention that I think the argument for banning stacked teams like GGGg is completely ridiculous. It's basically saying organizers should ban players for being too good at chess, because their presence is unfair to patzers. I heard this argument a few times during the last round and I had to walk away because it seemed so embarrasing and pathetic"
If this inst a pathetic ridiculous and embarrassing statement to make than I dont know what is. Shame on you!
First of all I think everyone is happy to see the GMs, and especially to play them as I had a chance to do this year. However, the story inst about GMs simply playing, it is about the creation of a team that is unbeatable which makes the whole tournament less dramatic and suspenseful for everyone involved. I personally didn't care because my team had no chance to win at all and I just played for fun. However, I heard many players including titled ones complain about this teams composition. Most people were saying "is this the Amateur Team East or Proffesional Team East :) I do not think we should ignore dismiss and in Vicary's case ridicule the opinions of those people who religiusly attend this event year after year.
I should add that this may start a dangerous precedent: imagine more teams like this next year, they would certainly be a good match for one another but what about everyone else?!
Well said Ilya.
1. Allowing what happened could discourage competition.
2. When the playoffs are held, are the other regions not put at a big disadvantage because according to the rules of the South, North, and West, there is a 1000 point rule?
3. I know others have jumped on the 4th board being low rated, but this makes no sense. According to the rules, they were allowed to do what they did (though again for the playoffs, it gives the GGGg team a huge advantage.
Would it change anyone's opinion to know that each GM was payed 1000$ as well as all expenses paid, by the rich dad of the "future GM".
There's no need to call anyone names, guys.
"Would it change anyone's opinion to know that each GM was payed 1000$ as well as all expenses paid, by the rich dad of the 'future GM'[?]"
No. The GMs deserve the payday.
Mr. Haskel are you insane, the kid is 5!!
"However, the story inst about GMs simply playing, it is about the creation of a team that is unbeatable which makes the whole tournament less dramatic and suspenseful for everyone involved."
No one is unbeatable. As Greg Shahade has pointed out, someone takes a point off one of the upper case Gs (it happens), the match likely ends up 2-2, and they're no longer in the top group.
It's insane to wonder how a kid can take lessons for two years and not even know the rules?
Someone enlighten me, where do the words paid and amateur meet?
The censorship is unbelievable. I guess there is something wrong with straight shooting. It ain't name calling if it's true.
I want to make it clear that I will boycott the match and have encouraged other players to do the same.
There was a clear 1k point rule.
"Someone enlighten me, where do the words paid and amateur meet?"
This from someone hose trip to Orlando was paid for by The Foreclosure Doctors LLC, 305-300-2055, at least according to the report on the USCF web site.
Hello, Ra8, I'm Rh8. You're black.
"Someone enlighten me, where do the words paid and amateur meet?"
This from someone whose trip to Orlando was paid for by The Foreclosure Doctors LLC, 305-300-2055, at least according to the report on the USCF web site.
Hello, Ra8, I'm Rh8. You're black.
Well no one beat them therefore they are unbeatable, get it????
I would just like to mention that its a clear cut case of rich daddy , rich dads think they can buy everyone and everything and that they are entitled to special privileges, I think they might be right. Its not the Gms fault, they took time to come to Parsipanny and played chess, its the person whose idea it was, the daddy as well as Steve Doyle whose long term vision has obviously short-circuited.
"I want to make it clear that I will boycott the match and have encouraged other players to do the same."
Your loss. You're never going to beat a GM that way.
"There was a clear 1k point rule."
Imposed by *your* organizer.
Get your facts straight buddy.
I did not receive a dime and I don't see any comment that indicates the value of the sponsorship.
I will tell you that the only thing paid for was the Econo Lodge hotel room for the other 3 players. Does 39$ for a hotel room seem like being paid? ... I don't think so.
"I will tell you that the only thing paid for was the Econo Lodge hotel room for the other 3 players. Does 39$ for a hotel room seem like being paid?"
Yes it does. Admittedly not as much as the three Gs, but I'm constrained to suggest that the payments received by you and by them are in proportion to your relative strengths as a chessplayer.
Now that you have shown an inability to read and continue to remain anon. I will no longer respond to your comments.
Thanks for wasting my time. :-)
Only one of the removed comments contained an insult, the rest were just not to the liking of the blog's author, this is selective censorship at its worst. Let free speech rule, this is America and not Botswana.
Where does everyone get this 1000 point rule from? I've checked the TLAs for all the events on the USCF website and the North and South events do not list such a rule. The only one that does is the West, and it specifies that the 1000 points is only between boards 3 & 4. Can someone provide the necessary advanced publicity that shows this rule was in effect in the North and South events?
Liz can remove whatever comments she wants. IF you want free speech, make your own blog. It's free!
Elizabeth did not play at Parsippany therefore her perspective mostly stems from sucking on GMs richards rather than common sense.
http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2008/02/usate-2008-concludes.html Another blog discussing this very matter.
Who's GM Richard?
"Who's GM Richard"???
You have made a prophet out of me!!!!
You see, weeks before the tournament, I had tried to convince my teammates to name ourselves the Dique4's.
My intent was to upend all the scholastics - make their coaches blow a gasket, while (hopefully) impressing some of the kids with the fact that (as I once saw printed on a tavern softball team's T-shirts) "You're only young once, but you can be immature your whole life long."
I even planned to extend the idea by recruiting two players for the team whose names were Richard Hertz and Michael Hunt.
My captain vetoed the idea.
Perhaps someone can explain all this to Liz. If she has trouble interpreting the names above, or the 9:23 PM comment, then either she doesn't spend much time around kids at all...or else the kids these days have matured even more than I thought. (Tricking a kid into asking, "What's a dique4?" was a frequent ploy among 13-year old boys back in the '60s; so I assumed it would still have some currency today, albeit with 10-year olds rather than 13-year olds.)
Jon Jacobs, Rook-N-Roll Forever
Wow. This blog entry seems to have generated as much comment as the New York Times' story about McCain and the lobbyist. I've never been to Parsippany but chess friends have touted it as one of the most fun, relaxed tournaments. I guess my question is whether in a tournament that has the word "Amateur" in its title, a team comprised of 3 Grandmasters and one 5-year-old violates the spirit if not the letter of the tournmanent rules. Also, what is the line between Professional and Amateur in chess? Is it the same as in golf or tennis where it is pretty easty to see who is the "pro" and who is the "am" in pro-am teams? While it is true that having GMs at a tournament is an obvious draw, isn't it more in the spirit of the Amateur East to have teams like Joel Benjamin's and Hikaru Nakamura which mixed "pros" (i.e. GMs) with "ams," either non-titled players or rising scholastic players?
It defeats the purpose of making a competitive team in this tournament without titled players when some stupid rich parent of a kid pays 3 gm's to play on his team, what does the kid get out of it?
by the way, on my team, the oldest player was 19 years old, yet we were on board 1 in the last round in this tournament
mr. fanning, take a look at that, and then you tell me,let your kid have some fun and play with who he wants, not who you want....and get him a real coach, how is he so bad if he has been working daily with roman, thats a joke
I have no beef with the 3 GMs who took home 1 grand each, they are good and they wanna get sort of reimbursed for their time. Nothing wrong with that.
Lol fanning u should be embarssed ur kid who is 5 yrs old is not even 1000 yet lolololololol
every 5 yr old i know is at least 1500. i mean when i was 5 i didnt have a uscf rating but was at least 1700 strength, unfort took me a lot of years or so to actually get my rtng that high (mainly cuz i had to play so many 100 rtd 5 year olds).
but anyway yea, and u know i heard there was this 4 yr old who had lessons for like 1 year and still doesn't know the najdorf lolololol. stpid kidz. lolz.
problem with chess in this country is the decaying strength of our ultra-youth category, 4-5 age category.
n e 1 who is serosly insulting this freaking 5 yr olds chess strength is maybe the biggest gigantic idiot in entire wrld and should be struck by lightning for being so stupid.
Elizabeth, the question is not "Who is GM Richards" but rather what is a GM's Richard" take it like a riddle and get back to me when you solve it. Have a nice day
Why are you all being so rude to this GM Richards whom I must admit I've never heard of.
Liz you never heard of Gm's Richard, but you must know that all male Gm's have a richard... I guess you didn't solve the riddle.
this is the dumbest "controversy" i've ever seen. certain people (incl a few women i've dated) have an uncanny ability to manufacture drama and controversy out of thin air. get a life and move on, folks. if it bothers you, and you refuse to de-prioritize it, then petition to have the rules changed instead of just whining or venting. if you must whine/vent, do it on your own blog. just a suggestion. this whole thread should be admin-nuked IMO.
I'm sorry but this riddle is too difficult. I think I need more hints please?
Wow,
If you think that Liz doesn't get it, you seriously don't get it.
Or maybe I don't get it.
What am I getting?
Dude, if she got it that post wouldn't have lived for very long and you know it. She clearly didn't get it. And now she didn't delete it cause she doesn't want everyone to think she is a moron.
Nah, I now think she was only pretending to not get it, from the beginning. Her way of politely defusing what was a hugely impolite (as well as off-base) remark, to put it mildly.
I've disagreed with Elizabeth about various things, including the topic of this thread, but the attacks on her moderation here are unfair. And, it's evident that a great many readers here and elsewhere - presumably all males - also are perfectly at ease with the GGGg team composition. So if you're contending that Liz's ah, history, has biased her opinion in favor of GMs, then what of the many posters who share her view....whose Richards do you think they're sucking?
OK, if everyone can stop frothing at the mouth for a second, I have a question. I don't follow the chess world (yet), so I don't know who the grandmasters on the GGGg team were or what their history is. But I'm getting the impression from some of the comments that they are players who regularly play for tournament purses. Doesn't that make them professional players, and wouldn't that disqualify them from playing in an amateur team tournament? How is "professional" defined in the chess world? Is it enough to play for purse money, or do you have to actually win the purse money on a regular basis to be considered a professional chess player?
If I had a horse in this race, the crucial issue to me would not be the legality of teaming three 2100+ players with a complete newbie, but rather the legality of allowing pros to compete in an amateur tournament. I'm sure the opportunity to play against grandmasters is very exciting, but to play against professional grandmasters for an amateur title -- well, it seems self-evident to me that this would violate the spirit of the tournament, if not the letter of the rules.
Please to acculturate the chess-world parvenu?
anja, there is no formal (or even widely accepted) definition of either "professional" or "amateur" within the chess world. Just as with the physical Olympics, the distinction has little meaning...especially since the income that 99% of GMs can earn, from prizes, teaching and other avenues, still falls below what is typical for educated individuals in the so-called "professions" (doctor, lawyer, college professor, and the like).
The sole reason for calling this tournament "Amateur," it seems, is that all teams were limited to an average rating of 2199 or below. The 3-GM team met that condition, and as you can see from the thread, an overwhelming majority of people (and 100% of those who actually compete in tournaments themselves) agree that GMs should be permitted to play in this event (although many don't agree that 3 GMs should be allowed together on a single 4-man team).
The above should answer your questions.
Couple of comments.
Wazzat you taking pictures of the 318 kings team? Are you their teacher? They are cool. Our 3rd board didn't know what hit him. (Push Us And We'll Topalover)
I had a creative idea regarding the GGGg issue and I was wondering where to put it. Looks like this is the place. So here goes.
We played GGGg, I enjoyed it, so did my 2nd and 3rd board, even though we all got beat. The 2nd board even played a decent interesting game. Perelshteyn is good for post-mortems, by the way, nice guy.
However, my 4th board didn't enjoy it, "it was kind of like wasting a round", he said afterwards. And it's even worse than wasting a round, it's unsporting. What kind of contest is that, 2000+ versus 178? In other one-on-one sports, like tennis, this kind of mismatch wouldn't pass the sniff test. So there is a problem, but we need to be creative to come up with a solution.
The source of the problem is the idea of taking a team's average rating. It is not always meaningful. A team with ratings of 1900-1800-1700-1300 will have about the same scores as a team with ratings of 1900-1800-1700-100, but they have way different average ratings. What we need is a team strength indicator that works better than average rating, but is equally easy to compute--no complicated statistical curves or formulas or crap.
Enter my idea, "accelerated ratings". If the difference between the 3rd board rating and the 4th board rating is more than 400, you use a higher 4th board rating, to make the difference 400, before taking the average. So for example: the team's ratings are 1900-1800-1700-100. Using the old average formula, the team's rating average is (1900+1800+1700+100)/4, which is 1375. Bogus. They will beat almost any other 1375 team. So let's use accelerated ratings. 1700 minus 100 is way more than 400, so you don't use 100, you use 1300. So the "accelerated rating" average is (1900+1800+1700+1300)/4, which is 1675. Much better!
Now what does this do for the G