Sunday, January 4, 2009

US Chess School, day 3 (plus party)

Amanda Mateer. At every US Chess School, several local players are invited guests for a day. This session, Amanda Mateer and Nick came on Saturday for lessons, the party, and the blitz tournament. For more background on the US Chess School, click here.
Amanda (slightly further away)

the very talented Luke Harmon
Luke as golfer
Yury Shulman

group shot

Nick, Steven, Amanda, David prepare to play a practice position.
Gregory Young plays David Adelberg
playing a practice position

blitz tournament

Kassa, Greg, David
Andrew Ng with flowers
Amanda Mateer

Darwin Yang and Conrad Holt

Gregory Young and Amanda Mateer

Luke plays with flowers behind
Steven Zierk and Conrad Holt tied for first in the blitz tournament and are about to begin the playoff. Winner gets to play a match with Yury Shulman. Steven won after two draws.Darwin Yang plays ping pong. Carl Harmon and Gregory Young watch a little Adelberg playing Wii.
Kassa Darwin and Andrew watch football


Anonymous said...

The appearance of Amanda Mateer on Day 3 of your photo essay is confusing. Was she there all along but didn't show up in any photos? She's not listed with the other participants on the first day. Can we get a little context or narrative explanation with our photos?

Elizabeth Vicary said...

sorry, more details are now in the main article. I apologize for the hastiness of the photos--I don't have my own laptop, so I'm using Greg's and consequently things are a little time-deprived.

Greg Shahade said...

At each program we try to invite some talented local players for half of one day's lesson. This time we coordinated it with the party, so they could come for a few hours of lessons and then come to the party and play in the blitz tournament.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the explanations. I was just trying to follow the plot and characters -- Kassa, David, Andrew, Luke, etc. and then all of a sudden, a new character shows up who looks very different than the other characters. It just threw me off as a reader.

Anonymous said...

i want 2 party too

Anonymous said...

Why can't you be the chess columnist for the New York Times? You're a better writer. Your subject matter is more interesting and relevant. I bet your game analysis would be as good if not better. I can think of a number of Chess Life and CLO writers who would be better including Jonathan Hilton and Abby Marshall. Don't you find the current writer (never mind the subject matter of today's column in the midst of Carlsen/Nakamura)'s prose style to be tedious, ponderous, lifeless? Maybe that is true of all the Times reporters (as opposed to the Op Ed columnists, some of whom can really write up a storm).

Voice of Reason said...

One might think that while you as a chess enthusiast prefer Ms. Vicary's writing but an average casual follower as is most of NYT readership, might prefer ponderous prose. I do not know this as a fact but it is possible.

Elizabeth Vicary said...

I'm not with you at all. He's a good writer. He's done an excellent job of covering the USCF issues, which Chess life and Chess LIfe Online have studiously ignored, and he has a damning way with quotations. Look:

and the most recent article, which offers a surprisingly clear plot summary of the fourth season of USCF Politics:

Anonymous said...

He's a boring writer and USCF politics is pathetic. Both sides come off looking like weirdos. I would rather rather read about Nakamura and Carlsen. They might be weird too but at least they are playing interesting chess.

Anonymous said...

I much prefer the days of Robert Byrne when there were two GM annotated games a week in the NY Times.

I could give a monkey's about the USCF squabbles.


Anonymous said...

I preferred the column when Byrne wrote and I share your opinion about the Times' odd obsession with USCF politics, something that most chess players could give a monkey's . . . about. The Times chess column of late somehow feels like it would be a better fit in the New York Post.

Anonymous said...

Last poster I agree with everything you said with the exception of the POST comment. GM Soltis has done a very nice job there for the longest time.

Granny O'Doul said...

Not to diminish anyone's talents, but Dylan McClain, like Soltis at the Post, was already on staff when he was assigned the chess column. Byrne was cut back from thrice a week to twice to once before he retired (or was retired; I don't know the details there).

Anonymous said...

I like GM Soltis's column in the Post and generally find it to be superior to the Times' chess coverage. My reference to the Post was more of a reference to their sensationalistic, gossip mongering, salacious, page six style of journalism. The current NY Times column feels like it would fit in better with that aspect of the Post and GM Soltis's column feels like it would be a better fit with the Times. But that's just me. McClain apparently has his fans here and elsewhere.