Interview with Seattle Sluggers Manager Eddie Chang

Elizabeth Vicary says: Let's start with your week one match. It looked to me like the Seattle team had a huge simultaneous freak-out. Is that a fair assessment, and if so, why did it happen? And what are you going to do to chill them out this week?

Eddie Chang says: Well, most of the Seattle players haven't played really played chess recently, so there was a bit of rust to work out. We are mostly recreational chess players, with a few exceptions, so it’s hard to make many tournaments. Plus, with the way the USCL is laid out, there aren't going to be any real blowouts in ratings, excluding Tennessee, and we had a couple over the past 2 seasons in which everything swung our way. As for remedies, last year we were contemplating giving Slava meth so he would move faster, maybe pot would be good for the other players.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Are you still bitter about last year? I think I remember you would have made the playoffs if Michael Lee hadn't lost some slow torturous game? Against Barredo maybe? Do you think the team itself might be traumatized?

Eddie Chang says: Last year's problems cannot be pinned on one person. There was a major meltdown by the whole team, kind of like the Mets of last year. We could have easily clinched a playoff birth anytime during the last 3 weeks, and we just blew it.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Let me ask the question in a better way. If Clint Ballard were doing this interview, who would he blame?

Eddie Chang says: Clint would probably blame Greg Shahade. I don't know what he would accuse Greg of, but it would probably be Greg.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Excellent! Is Clint still involved with the Sluggers?

Eddie Chang says: Clint was instrumental in starting the Sluggers, but after the 1st season life got in the way, so he isn't able to dedicate the time into it that he did. You should have seen the statistical analysis he did. It was crazy. I guess that’s what you get for being a math major from Caltech.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Okay, new topic I think: Nakamura!

Eddie Chang says: the Seattle Slugger's Superman

Elizabeth Vicary says: How did he come to play for Seattle? Did you contact him? Did he contact you? Did you have a fierce bidding war with San Fransisco to get him?

Eddie Chang says: There was no bid with San Fransisco, since Naka lives about 2 hours away from us. When I heard he was moving to Vancouver BC, I contacted him and talked about maybe joining the Sluggers. During this offseason, I was hearing rumors about how other teams were improving, so I wanted to add a more flexibility to the lineup, and be able to play Serper on Board 2. So, it was a choice between Nakamura and Akobian.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Akobian? Doesn’t he live in LA? You were going to pay Akobian to drive from LA?

Eddie Chang says: I have a ton of airline miles, like I think I have 400,000 in unused miles right now.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Oh my goodness, that’s hilarious. Was he willing?

Eddie Chang says: Yeah he was, but Naka just made more sense.

Elizabeth Vicary says: How much will Naka play and when does he start?

Eddie Chang says: Well, I'm not sure how much Naka will play right now, at least 2 games during the regular season, and the playoffs. As for his debut, why give other people more time to prepare against him. It will be a surprise.

Elizabeth Vicary: So is he playing against Tennessee? What’s your line up and how do you expect to do?

Eddie Chang says: It’s Greg Serper/Slava Mikailuk/John Readey/Michael Lee. How we do depends on when Ehlvest is going to be playing….I’d guess 3-1 Seattle: Draw on 1, and 2, Wins on 3 and 4. (update: on seeing the line-ups, Chang changed his prediction to 4-0)

Elizabeth Vicary says: So do you have lineups picked out for different opponents, like do you have a team you would play against a top heavy team, or a line up you would play against a balanced team? Or does it depend more on who is available?

Eddie Chang says: Availability is an issue of course, but I mostly know who I want to play against who. A top heavy lineup would be Nakamura/Serper/Readey/Andy May. As for balanced lineup, we could run the Tangborn/Mikhailuk/Milat/Readey lineup like we did last year. I basically try to assign a value to each matchup, i.e. Chances of winning/drawing/losing to each board, and I try to figure out what setup would give us the most edge. If I can find 3 good boards in which I have a good advantage and then throw a board in assuming a loss there, I would.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Preparation. It's clear that you are very into these matches. Do your team members prepare as seriously as you do? Do you go out after the games? Hang out together?

Eddie Chang says: I know Serper prepares, as evidenced by his game against Friedel last year when he played 1 e4. I think most of the other players follow Marcel's Toilet Prep.

Elizabeth Vicary says: What’s that?

Eddie Chang says: You didn't read about it in the Seattle Blog last year? Basically he just has books next to the toilet and picks an opening randomly out of it and then plays it. http://seattlesluggers.blogspot.com/2007/09/tolilet-reading.html

Elizabeth Vicary says: Marcel Martinez? Marcel Duchamp?

Eddie Chang says: Marcel Milat.

Elizabeth Vicary says: oh

Eddie Chang says: Preparing together is hard for scheduling. We all have jobs. Finding time to get together is hard. We all stick around and watch the rest of the each others games, and sometimes get together to play, study or whatever, but for the most part, we all have lives to get back to. They have kids to get back to. Hmm. I wonder which other team has players with kids. We should have their kids play each other. USCL4Kids.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Tell me a little about Serper.

Eddie Chang says: I think the best comment I've ever heard Serper make was when he was commenting about one of Slava's games that he lost. Serper said, "You’re a better player then him. Why didn't you just develop your pieces and mate him?"

Elizabeth Vicary says: That’s the best thing you've ever heard him say? I have to confess I’m not terribly impressed yet.

Eddie Chang says: It was the way he said it.
He's a rock on the board, won't lose very many games, except as black to Friedel. Comes up with some miraculous defenses in positions that I would despise.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Okay, last but most serious question. What has to happen for Seattle to make the playoffs?

Eddie Chang says: Looking at the rosters of the Western Division, I think we have a great shot to make the playoffs. I would be really disappointed if we didn't. We have a strong lineup and an easier schedule than both San Fransisco and Dallas. As long as we don't make any stupid mistakes, I can't really see any reason we won't make the playoffs. Excluding Tenn, it’s a 6 team race to make 4 playoffs spots. Those are great odds for us.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Your upcoming schedule is:
Miami Sharks
Tennessee Tempo
New Jersey Knockouts
Chicago Blaze
Dallas Destiny
New York Knights
San Francisco Mechanics
Arizona Scorpions
Tennessee Tempo
Arizona Scorpions

You lost to the Sharks. Who will you beat of the above list? Let's say you need 4/9 to qualify? Fair?

Eddie Chang says: Yeah, fair. But we will be at least 7-3. I think we will beat Arizona, Tennessee, San Fran, New York, Dallas, Chicago, and New Jersey.

please, could someone explain this to me?

I ... honestly, it's just completely beyond me. I know that I'm fanatically left wing and not open minded at all, and basically I have an immediate and serious reservations about anyone if I know they're Republicans. I say this not to justify it but to illustrate that I know I'm biased and inflexible.

But Sarah Palin? Are you f%^&ing kidding me??
At least Condaleeza Rice is intelligent.
And not unbelievably tacky looking and sounding.

Like I'm honestly, seriously, trying to understand it, so I go to Fox News, and this is what the Republican spokesperson has to say:

"I think John McCain has his story … he has enthusiasm on a different level,” said Davis. “I think Sarah Palin brought her own level of enthusiasm, her own type of enthusiasm.”

What does that even mean? Enthusiasm? Is that the best that they can do?

Some other guy says:

“I don’t think they were looking for perfection in a candidate,” said Scott Glover, a Florida delegate.

and

"Earlier in the day, delegates at the breakfast used words like “awesome” ... to describe Palin."

and finally:

"Nevertheless, Republicans say they have found a whole new reason to fight in November, and thank McCain for the gift of Sarah Palin."

... which gets me to the next question: how the f^& does this pass for journalism? what is going on here?
Then the Atlantic opines,

"Many Republicans were already nervous about McCain. On Friday, the Palin pick soothed one set of Republicans -- the grass roots activists."

The Republicans have grass-roots activists? Really? Do they have pot lucks and hand out fliers together and wear hemp clothing? And they are a large voting block??

The bizarre thing is that everyone is claiming she has foreign policy experience because she's governor of Alaska and Alaska is close to Russia (?!) Do they really believe this makes sense? Is this all a joke? Is this possible?

Anyway, since I assume that at least some of my readers are both Republican and of above average intelligence, could someone please explain what McCain was thinking?
Thanks!

Interview with USCL Assistant Commissioner Arun Sharma

EV: So let's start with what you do: what is your actual league title, and what are your responsibilities?

AS: Greg and I actually wasted way more time then we should have in debating this. For awhile it was Assistant Commissioner and for awhile it was Vice President. Probably neither is quite accurate considering how much each of us contributes. I probably do about 80% of the work, Greg does maybe 20% (ed.: Greg disputes these figures), but in fairness to him, the 20% he does is by far the most important stuff like dealing with the managers and coordinating with ICC while most of what I do is largely filler.

EV: And your work?

AS: Things I do, all the articles I write of course, Predictions, Power Rankings, Game of the Week article, and the Prediction contest, I rule on takebacks, check everything for errors (and with Greg there are plenty), judge Game of the Week, plus I do all the statistics, updating the standings, MVP list, players' performance ratings, basically everything involved in making the Player Pages. Plus I rewrote the whole rules page before this season. And of course during the matches, I try to contribute as much as possible in kibitzing, answering people's questions, and advertising that sort of stuff.

EV: You rule on takebacks… how interesting. How many rulings have you made, and how many went each way? What criteria do you use to judge?

AS: There have been none so far this year, last year there were unfortunately two rather big ones right at the beginning of the season. There were a few others later in year, but pretty minor ones where there was no quarrel. It’s hard to say yes to no ratio honestly, since there have not been a ton of examples and ones where it's a mistake due to a relayer are handled quite differently.

As for judging, well, it's just about looking at the move itself and asking yourself if you think it was almost certainly a mouseslip, nothing more than that really.

The two big examples from last year were Philadelphia vs Miami Week 1, where the match was tied 1.5 - 1.5 and Costigan had R+2 pawns vs R and then slipped and dropped his R which obviously was a rather huge swing in terms of being granted or not. It was clearly a mouseslip, but obviously the Miami fans weren't exactly happy about it being granted.

EV: Wow, is there a time penalty for this?

AS: There is always a time penalty if a mouseslip is granted, at least five minutes but obviously in that situation a time penalty isn't going to be especially relevant, it's all about whether or not it's granted.

EV: Even if the players are under 5 minutes?

AS: If either player is especially low, typically mouseslips won't be granted. Which brings us to the other big one from last year, Boston vs Queens, where Critelli mouseslipped with about three minutes on his clock with his game deciding whether Queens drew or lost the match. His was not granted for that reason.

EV: How did you get involved working for the League to begin with?

AS: Well before the League existed, I'd basically been out of Chess completely for around four years (from 2001 - 2005). I still kept in contact with Greg on occasion though, and he mentioned to me this idea that he had which was going to come to fruition. I was kind of curious how and if it would work so I logged on to ICC during the first week to watch and found it quite entertaining so I started watching every week and there you go. During the first year, I was basically only an ardent viewer (perhaps the most devoted spectator, but I don't know).

Then come the second year, Greg asked me if I was interested in writing Preseason Predictions for the season given how much I watched the first season. He felt that someone should write them and that it would be better if someone other than himself was to do it so I did. I guess he liked it (even though several managers weren't so happy with me!) so he started asking me to write other things like the GOTW articles etc., and the rest is history.

EV: Are you happy with the League's progress in general? If so, are you surprised by it?

AS: Quite so, I think it's grown quite a bit every year, and what else can you really ask for when you have something which is only a few years old. I wouldn't say I'm surprised either, we have taken many steps to try to accomplish this. To be honest, what most surprised me was really how strong the League has been from the start. I wouldn't have anticipated that during the first year so many GMs would participate (nearly one per team even back then). I would have guessed that it would start off much more slowly and once some reasonable recognition was gained, then GMs would start to play. I was quite impressed that Greg was able to get so many strong players to play in something entirely new with no financial compensation. That is definitely one of the things he is good at though (and I suppose me working for the League is personal proof of it!).

EV: What do you see yourself doing in the League in future years?

AS: Hard to say, perhaps nothing. There is a fair chance this will be my last year working for the League as I'll be graduating this Spring and probably after that won't have the time necessary to be able to continue to do what I do. So anyone looking to take over my job next year, be sure to apply now!

EV: Most people know what you do working for the League, but tell us about yourself as a chess player.

AS: I guess my story is pretty typical for an American kid, learned at an early age, got addicted pretty quickly, and was heavily into it for several years. Then, in my early teen years when starting High School and school in general becoming a higher priority, it became secondary and basically stopped playing competitively then.

EV: If you had to pick one match from last year that was the most interesting, which would it be and why?

AS: If you're talking about sheerly interesting, I would have to say two of the three Boston vs. New York matches were the top (the Monday night one and the Semifinal). Just when those teams play there is always so much pre-game hype, and those matches in particular were really interesting on the board also. If you add drama as a factor, then it would have to be the Championship Match for obvious reasons.

EV: Can you describe one of these two matches, briefly?

AS: The Monday Match one was naturally hyped of course because of the Nakamura vs LarryC showdown, and the match itself was just super close, especially the way the Perelshteyn vs. Charbonneau game was swinging back and forth between seeming drawn or won for Black. As a result the overall match was hanging by a thread also; it was just one of the most intense nights, in terms of spectating anyway that I can remember.

EV: So I saw you picked SF to beat Boston in the final in your pre-season predictions. Has anything happened in Week One that would make you revise any of the predictions you made a couple weeks ago?

AS: I don't think so really. I based those predictions on overall factors, things which can't generally change in a week, and given how balanced the League is, changing an overall view based on one match generally seems wrong. The one thing that might be different is I might have put Dallas slightly lower, not because they lost their first match, but because they lost IM Stopa, who has been tremendous in the League, from the roster right before the season

EV: Why did they lose him?

AS: I believe it was because he ended up having to take a class on Wednesday Nights.

EV: Okay, so in terms of changes from last year, what team lost the most strength in your opinion, either through players getting higher rated and being unable to play 3rd or 4th board, or people moving, etc. I’m asking in terms of impact on overall team strength, i.e. maybe NY lost the most in Nakamura, but they partially made up for it in Fed and Shabalov.

AS: Boston for sure. Shmelov and Williams are both much higher rated than last season; not to say they aren't still a really strong team, but I don't think they are as strong as last year. That lineup they used throughout the Playoffs last year is really hard to match. I can't think of any legal lineup this season that would quite compare with that one.

EV: And who gained the most?

AS: I would definitely say San Francisco (which is the main reason I predicted them to win this year), both Shankland and Naroditsky have markedly improved in the last year, so they have two severely underrated players on the bottom two boards, similar to what Boston had last year.

EV: Who are your picks for individual board All Stars this year?

AS: Board 1 I'd have to go with Becerra, he's been an All Star all three years and a two time MVP, and you can't argue with results.

Board 2 is tougher, I could give the nod any of the three who were All Stars last year (Sammour-Hasbun, Kuljasevic, or Bhat) or now to Friedel who might play more on Board 2 this year. It's not clear who amongst them will be eligible (either play enough or maybe play more on Board 1), but those are the top picks to me.

Board 3 I like Lenderman of Queens, once again assuming he plays enough there to be eligible. Obviously he will have a big rating edge in almost all of his games.

Board 4 I'd take Naroditsky of SF, like I mentioned earlier, with his current rating he should also have a big rating edge against most of his opponents.

EV: Which player is your favorite in the league?

AS: I would have to say GM Becerra of Miami. I just like the way he plays in general, his games are always quite entertaining with strong play and nice tactics.

EV: Which division do you think is stronger, and also which division is more balanced?

AS: I actually debated this with a few people, and I think that really depends on what you mean by stronger. The East has always seemed to have that advantage since they tend to have a lot more GMs than the West, but obviously that doesn't necessarily correspond to having better teams.

If you're talking about who would win long term if they played tons of interleague matches that's a tough one. Assuming all teams could use their best lineups all the time, I really have no idea, it'd be pretty close though I think.

If you look at previous years' standings, I think the East is clearly more balanced. After all both of the last two years, the team which finished last would have made the playoffs if they'd won instead of lost in the last week. This year, honestly I don't think there is too much difference

EV: Let’s talk about the blogs for a moment. Aside from yourself and myself, who are your favorite bloggers, predictors, commentators, etc,. in terms of humor, overall interestingness, accuracy etc.?

AS: In terms of reading material, prior to this year, I liked Boylston the most, Glickman always wrote nice reports which were just good writeups in general and had some nice humor in them. I also really liked the Boston Blitz Fan Page, those interviews are always a really nice feature.

Predictor, well that has to be Ron Young, the other people who do it, like myself, are pretty much scientific about it, he obviously is not :)

Leaves comments, Ilya Krasik and it's not close, his posts always seem to have or create a large amount of entertainment (or controversy depending on how you look at it).

EV: Okay, so the future. What are your goals for the USCL?

AS: Goals for the most part are Greg's domain. I function more as a "This is what we have as of now so work with it as best you can." But nothing too fancy as of now I guess, just more of everything, more sponsorship, more blogging, more publicity.

EV: In general, would you like to see more civility or more controversy in the USCL? Please cite examples.

AS: Tough question for sure, I think rivalries are a very good thing in sports in general, it shows how much the players and fans really care, but naturally it can lead sometimes to a lack of civility.

In terms of more or less, I'd have to say more, Boston vs. New York is of course the standard example, and I think it would be good if there were more rivalries as heated as that one is.

EV: Does it bother you that people complain about the GOTW selections so much, often criticizing your decisions?

AS: Not at all really. I like that people care enough about it that they express their opinion about it whether they agree or not. Obviously it is subjective so you have to expect some amount of people to disagree with you basically every time.

EV: OK, last question… what was the funniest moment of last season?

AS: Hmm that might not be a good one for you to ask … my answers might involve some personal stuff and might insult some people …, but ok, there was an interesting issue with IM Bonin.

When we wrote up the All Stars, Bonin was third All Star on Board Three and in the commentary about him in that article, it was made mention of the fact that his Semifinal win vs. Shmelov "was tainted" due to the circumstances. And Jay got really upset about that comment said it was rude and out of line, and was blasting me to Greg.

EV: How was it tainted?

AS: Just, you know, since Shmelov was winning basically the whole game and almost certainly wouldn't have lost if the team result had depended on it… but the funny part was … like I said he was blasting me to Greg, but Greg was actually the one who had written that comment, not me.

EV: That’s hilarious.

AS: Yes I threatened to tell Jay myself, but Greg protested, still falsely claiming that he hadn't written it (even though we both knew he did), and in the end it didn't really seem important so I gave in and didn't say anything (until now!).

EV: Oh beautiful. You took the fall. That’s heroic.

AS: That's just part of my job.

A little quiz from my game against Joel Banawa

Ok, my rook is attacked. Where should it go?? (don't look at the next diagram until you have an answer)

Now my king is attacked. Where to go?

answers and game tomorrow sometime...

Vicary - Cheng Edmonton International

(216) Vicary,Elizabeth - Cheng ,Bindi [B40]
Edmonton (1), 21.08.2008
1.e4 c5

2.Nf3 e6

3.b3 Nf6

4.e5 Nd5

5.c4

An alternate way to play, more flexible since I'm not fixing the central pawn structure: 5.Bb2 Be7 6.g3 0–0 7.Bg2 f5 8.0–0 Nc6 9.c4 Nc7 10.Re1 b6 11.d4 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bb7 13.Nc3 Rc8 14.Ndb5 Nxb5 15.Nxb5 a6 16.Nd6 Bxd6 17.Qxd6 Qc7 18.Rad1 Rf7 19.f4 Nd8 20.Qxc7 Rxc7 21.Bd4 Bxg2 22.Bxb6 Rc8 23.Kxg2 Nb7 24.Re2 Kf8 25.Red2 Ke8 26.Kf3 Rc6 27.Be3 Nc5 28.Bxc5 Rxc5 29.Rd6 Ra5 30.R1d2 g5 31.Rb6 gxf4 32.gxf4 Rg7 33.Rb8+ Ke7 34.a4 h5 35.Rxd7+ Kxd7 36.Rb7+ Kc6 37.Rxg7 Kc5 38.Rb7 Kd4 39.Rb6 Kc3 40.Ke3 1–0 Kasparov,G (2815)-Williams,A/London 1998/EXT 2000

5...Nc7

6.Bb2 Nc6

So I had a long think here. I felt like my oppponent was going to play ...d6 or ...d5, and then if I took, he would recapture with the queen or bishop, and quickly set up his ideal Rubinstein structure: e6-e5, Be7, Be6, f6, Qd7, possibly Rb8 and b5, maybe f5, maybe Nd4.

On the other hand, if I don't take his d pawn and he gets to play d4, I might have permanent space problems.

I felt like I must stop all this. I think the idea of Bd3 was to meet ...d6 with Qe2 and try to not take the pawn, but my thinking around this point was changing a lot, plus it was a long time ago so I don't remember too well. Anyway, I was trying to castle quickly and do something disruptive... ummm.. the details are fuzzy.

7.Bd3

My alternatives were 7.g3 and 7. Nc3, but I excpected he would just play d5 and do his thing as above.

7...d5 But of course I don't want to deal with ...d4, so Qe2 is stupid.

8.exd6

8.0–0 d4 9.Na3 Be7 10.Nc2 0–0 (10...g5?!) Beastie thinks I'm ok here. I guess black is just as cramped as I am.

8...Qxd6

9.Qe2

9.Be4 for some reason I wanted to play this move, and Rybka suggests it, but I can't for the life of me remember why. It looks absurd, but I remember spending a lot of time trying to make it work. I didn't play it in the end because I thought black could win the bishop: 9...f5 10.Bc2 Nb4 wwas what I saw, but check out the Rybka line: 10.Bxc6+! Qxc6 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Ng5 (12.Bxg7 Rg8) 12...0–0 (12...e5 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qh4) 13.Qh5 h6 14.Qg6

9...f6 10.0–0

10.Nh4! is a great move here, as the threat of 11.Qh5+ is super-annoying.

10...Be7

11.Nc3 e5

12.Nh4 0–0

13.Ne4 Qd8 threatens f5

14.Ng3 Ne6

15.Qe4 Ng5

16.Qe3 g6

17.Rae1
Fun Rybka line: 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Nxg6 Rf7 19.f4 exf4 20.Qxf4; I had looked only at 17.Nxg6? hxg6 18.h4 Ne6 19.Qh6 Qxd3

17...Bd6 17...f5! is great, sort of shielding the light squares, mostly shielding g6.

18.Ne4 Nxe4

19.Bxe4 Ne7

20.b4 We were both in quite serious time pressure at this point-- move 30 is time control.

20...Qb6

21.b5 a6

22.Qh6 Rf7

But 22...Qc7 is better--black needs the queen on the kingside

23.f4! exf4

24.Bd5??

I should go all in: 24.Bxg6 Nxg6 (24...hxg6 25.Nxg6 Nxg6 26.Qxg6+ Rg7 27.Qxf6) 25.Nxg6 hxg6 26.Re8+ Bf8 27.Rxf8+ Rxf8 28.Qxg6+ Kh8 29.Rxf4

24...Nxd5

25.cxd5 c4+

26.Kh1 At this point I had no time left and was just using the 30 second increment to get to move 30.

26...Be5? This allows a tactic. Smug beastie would play 26...Qxb5.

27.Rxf4! Bf5

28.g4?

Oh no! I can simply take: 28.Bxe5 fxe5 29.Rxf5 Rxf5 30.Nxf5 and the g pawn is pinned across the 3rd rank.

analysis diagram

28...Bd3

29.Nxg6

Still winning: 29.Bxe5 fxe5 30.Rxf7 Kxf7 31.Qxh7+ Kf8 32.Re3 and the threat is 33.Rf3+ Ke8 34.Qf7+ Kd8 35.Qf8+ Kc7 36.Rf7#

29...Bxg6 0–1

Interview With Arizona Scorpion IM Mark Ginsburg

Elizabeth Vicary says: How did you come to be on the Arizona team? Were you a founding member? A hired gun? A strange apparition in the night?

Mark Ginsburg says: I was living and working in Chicago then came back to Tucson when that work arrangement ended. So now I'm living in Tucson and hence a "local."
At some point, I was going to be transferred to San Jose so in another reality I could have been a "Mechanic." I'm not a founding member... I think Leo Martinez founded the club then invited me when he learned I was coming back to Tucson.

Elizabeth Vicary says: So you're saying you were a tack-on at the end?

Mark Ginsburg says: Not quite an afterthought, more like an early 'n solid addition. :)

Elizabeth Vicary says: In New York, we have some team props, or more accurately, Jay Bonin has a sword and shield. Do you have any Scorpion related team spirit items?

Mark Ginsburg says: I just want to say I liked living in SF in the year 1999-2000 very much so I have positive feelings towards the Mechanics. :)
Now I will answer your q :) We have Amanda Mateer as a Spirit Item. No kiddie crap like Bonin's toys … Let me rephrase: no kiddie crap *yet*. I am sure Robby will think of something

Elizabeth Vicary says: How is Amanda Mateer like a scorpion?

Amanda Mateer

Mark Ginsburg says: She giggles and if you play back the giggle at a faster speed, it sounds like an SSSS.

Elizabeth Vicary says: ok, so... related question. I have a pair, ok, 2 pair, of NY Knights underwear. I would have misgivings, however, about wearing underwear with a frightening scorpion on it. Aren't you afraid your female fans might share my hesitation?

Mark Ginsburg says: Are "they" selling scorpions underwear? If so, yes. I think Scorpions gear is most definitely a little scary. I found a real one in my boot the hard way

Elizabeth Vicary says: Scary enough to change your logo to, perhaps, a fuzzy cat?

Mark Ginsburg says: I think an Agave Plant would be nice. Agave makes mescal.... we could all be trippin' balls to be consonant with our logo.

Elizabeth Vicary says: wow. Okay, moving on…How much will you be in the AZ line up? Do you have any say in what the weekly team composition is? If so, what line up strategies can you reveal?

Mark Ginsburg says: I would like to play as much as possible. We have two possible locations and players split up between Phoenix and Tucson. Some of us can travel. Levon, Warren Harper, Robby and I are in Tucson. Aldama, Barcenilla, Rensch are in Phoenix area. It's up to us *where* to play the match; there are numerous possible lineups, very complex.

Elizabeth Vicary says: any predictions for the team you expect to see from Dallas? Where do you think they are strongest and weakest against you guys?

Mark Ginsburg says: I am not sure who they will play... they have a lot of strong players. Our best hope to do damage is board 4. Since they have so many 2500s, they have to go down to a relatively weaker board 4. As a strategist, I need Board One to hold, Boards 2 and 3 to get 0.5 at least, and a win on 4. Quite honestly, in USCL, anything can happen. In our first match, our 2350 played much worse than that. But if we have a player who buckles down and is Joe Solid without freakouts, we have good chances on 4.

Elizabeth Vicary says: yeah, what happened with Warren there?

Mark Ginsburg says: He was probably nervous. Was lost the first time I glanced at his board! Levon and I grimaced, but what can we do? He was just lost. I think he got some lines mixed up. Our prep session was dreadful.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Tell us about your prep sessions.

Mark Ginsburg says: They are not good. We try to have one solid prep per match... but we need to bring them above the level of nonsensical. I didn't help in the prep session, laying on a sofa and yelling I was tired.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Tell me what you guessed for each game

Mark Ginsburg says: I was gonna say, NY would have benefited greatly from a productive prep before the Boston match.
We guessed Warren's opp would go for a 4. e3 Nimzo. And he didn't. He went for a 4. a3 Saemisch. Warren acted as if the Saemisch was totally foreign territory for him.
Robby lent me a book so that I could repeat a recent draw I had vs Pasalic OTB, a Taimonov. And then I varied with a Kan.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Why did you do that? That’s not guessing wrong

Mark Ginsburg says: I did it because I an enamored with putting my N on d7 in Sicilians, a bias of mine. But Nc6 is more active. :) Delchev's book, which was new to me, is a nice book. (on the Taimonov).
Levon did some private prep, he was out of town for our group prep. Obviously his prep went well. Robby just played on 'general considerations' vs Burgess.... that went well except for his nerves playing tricks and driving him down to 8 secs.

Elizabeth Vicary says: But what did he expect in opening? And did he get it?

Mark Ginsburg says: Some kind of slow sicilian, yes, he got it. I just wanted to give a link to levon and robby's notes to their games; http://sazchess.org/reference/palview4/games/USCL/week1.htm it helps answer some prep questions.

Elizabeth Vicary says: ok, on to your evaluations of other teams...Who do you think will make the playoffs?

Mark Ginsburg says: In the West, I think SF is the best. I think we have serious competition with Dallas for #2. West is tough…
We are extremely hard to predict, we have so many faces. In fact our lineup has us always contesting matches tightly, and never being crushed, but never blowing anyone away! We are compact.

Aldama is one of those strong guys who does well when he pops his head up. I believe he’s originally Cuban. Barcenilla is a very strong practical player esp. at faster time limits ... but who knows if they will be allergic to the peculiar ICC format or not. Maybe they will pull through and score heavily. Rensch is a very good attacker.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Will he only be playing as white?

Mark Ginsburg says: He is strong as white, but who knows. I wanna play white sometime :)

Elizabeth Vicary says: Okay, so any thoughts on league play in general? How is it different than OTB play? Do you believe some people are seriously affected by playing on computer screen?

Mark Ginsburg says: Yes, many players are seriously adversely affected by computer play. I tried out moving on a physical board myself, and it worked out well (Amanda relayed and so did Ben Marmont). As long as there is not frantic "Robby-esque" time pressure.

Elizabeth Vicary says: what did you guys do after the game? Any celebrations?

Mark Ginsburg says: We went nuts. We went to Applebees and we were all emotionally wrecked by the tension. We ordered a billion drinks in the 15 minute window we had before last-call. Of course, the underaged Warren and Amanda and Ben did not have alcohol because we are a law-abiding team. I was probably screaming out "Up in the Air, Junior Birdman!" I have a pic to go along with that.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Great, skype it to me. What does it mean?

Mark Ginsburg says: It's something you say while flapping your arms. You sort of make bird-eyes then flap your elbows and yell that out. It's an art-form.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Okay, now for the difficult analogy question part of this interview. Ready?
Which of the Arizona Scorpions is most like …

a kitchen appliance, and what kind?

Mark Ginsburg says: Levon is a highly efficient microwave

Elizabeth Vicary says: mode of transportation, and what kind?

Mark Ginsburg says: Warren is a dirt bike with big shocks.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Ethnic cuisine, and what kind?

Mark Ginsburg says: I am Indian buffet lunch

Elizabeth Vicary says: Grammatical mistake, and what kind?

Mark Ginsburg says: Aldama is an improper failure to space an ellipsis

Elizabeth Vicary says: Farm product, and what?

Mark Ginsburg says: Rensch is a wheat thresher

Elizabeth Vicary says: That's not a product. That's an implement.

Mark Ginsburg says: That's a farm tool. So for product I will say "cereal.":)
Toasted Oats.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Still Rensch?

Mark Ginsburg says: Toasted HONEY Oats. Yes. Heart-Healthy.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Consitutional amendment, and which one?

Mark Ginsburg says: FM Ken Larsen is the Women's Right to Vote.

Elizabeth Vicary says: Typical undergraduate essay topic, and what?

Mark Ginsburg says: Leo Martinez is the tried and true "Understanding the Beginnings of the Cold War."

Elizabeth Vicary says: And lastly…Beatles song, and which one?

Mark Ginsburg says: I would like to be "Blue Jay Way" for its much maligned "mystical" influences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Jay_Way

Elizabeth Vicary says: is there anything else you would like to say?

Mark Ginsburg says: I would like to thank you for letting me bla bla and most importantly, if I impugned any player or team in my stupid blog, remember "all press is good press." Teams and fans, keep the contro in controversy!

Gerzhoy - Vicary Edmonton International

(218) Gerzhoy,Leonid - Vicary,Elizabeth [B22]
Edmonton International (5), 21.08.2008

1.e4 c5
2.c3 Nf6
3.e5 Nd5
4.g3 d6
5.exd6 e6
6.Bg2 Bxd6
7.Ne2 0–0
8.0–0 Nc6

Hurray! I did what my file says I'm supposed to.
9.Na3 a6?
Probably a wasted tempo? Brynell -Cramling 1993 0–1 went 9...Be7 10.d3 e5 11.Nc4 Be6 12.a4 Qd7 13.Bd2 Rad8 14.b3 f5 15.Ra2 Bf6

10.Nc4 Be7
11.d4 cxd4
12.Nxd4
12.cxd4 Bf6 I figured this was a fine isolated pawn position for me. My knight is already on d5, his dark bishop doesn't have any obvious squares, and his Ne2 is placed a little strangely.
12...Nxd4 13.Qxd4
13.cxd4 It would be insane, of course, to trade a pair of minor pieces and then accept an isolated pawn.
13...Bf6

14.Qg4 [14.Qd3? Nxc3]
14...Qc7
15.Ne3 I don't want to take this knight at all, because I think both his knight and bishop want to be on e3, but unfortunately I don't have a good retreat.
15...Nxe3
16.Bxe3 Bd7
17.Rfd1
17.Qb4-- I was scared of this move in the game. It's like I'm almost equal, except that his bishops have unpleasant pressure against my queenside pawns. 17...Bc6 18.Bb6 Qc8 19.Rfd1 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 Qc6+ 21.Kg1 still, just slightly unpleasant.
17...Bc6
18.Qc4 Rfd8
19.Bxc6 Qxc6
I don't want to weaken my pawns without trading queens, since they will be on light squares and consequently are much more vunerable with queens on.

20.Qxc6 bxc6
21.Kf1 Kf8
22.Ke2 Ke8
23.b3 23...Rd5
Not 23...Bxc3? I'm not winning a pawn and I'm just activating his rook. 24.Rxd8+ Rxd8 25.Rc1 Bb4 26.Rxc6]
24.Rac1 [24.c4? Rh5]
24...Rad8
25.c4 Rxd1
26.Rxd1 Rxd1
27.Kxd1 e5

I need to push the pawns on the side where I have an extra. If I just sit around, he will make a queenside passed pawn and beat me.
28.Kc2 Be7
29.Kd3 Kd7
30.c5 f5
31.b4 g5
32.a4 h5
33.Kc4 f4
34.Bd2


34...fxg3
Beastie likes 34...Ke6!? 35.h3 (35.b5?! axb5+ 36.axb5 cxb5+ 37.Kxb5 Kd5 38.c6 Bd8 39.Bb4 e4 40.gxf4 gxf4 41.Bc5=) 35...g4 36.hxg4 hxg4 37.gxf4 Bh4 38.f5+ (38.fxe5 Bxf2-/+) 38...Kxf5 39.Be3=
35.fxg3 g4
36.b5 cxb5+
37.axb5 axb5+
38.Kxb5 h4 [38...Bd8]
39.c6+ Kc7 not Kc8 because I want the white bishop to have to come to a5

40.Ba5+ Kc8 41.Bb4 Bg5 42.Bd6 [42.Kc4]

42...h3 43.Bxe5 Be3 44.Kc4

I really can't quite describe what happened here. I guess I was tired. Back when I played 42...h3, I saw this great idea that I could sack the e5 pawn to play Be3-g1xh2. Then he has to put his bishop on f2, and it's a draw. If his king ever goes over to help, I can take the c pawn.

I had spent some time making sure of everything and I was proud of myself. But then I started second-guessing ... somehow I talked myself into believing that I would be zugzwanged and my king would have to move out from c8, allowing the pawn to queen. And I did something pretty uncharacteristic-- I didn't double check the "losing" variation, I just gave up and got upset. Which is a shame because the draw is pretty.

44...Bf2 [44...Bg1 45.Bd4 Bxh2 46.Bf2 Kc7 47.Kd5 Kc8 48.Kd6 Kd8

analysis diagram

49.c7+ Kc8 50.Kc6 Bg1 51.Bxg1 h2 52.Bxh2 stalemate]

45.Kd5 Kd8?? oh my god [45...Bg1]

46.Ke4 Bg1 47.Kf5 1–0

Vicary - Lagemann US Open rd 8

(215) Vicary,Elizabeth - Lagemann,Nathaniel [B52]
US Open (8), 21.08.2008
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0–0 Nc6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4 Nxe4 8.d5 Ne5 9.Re1 Nxf3+ 10.Qxf3 Nf6

11.Na3
The alternative is 11.c4, when the line typically goes e5 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.Bg5 Be7 14.Nc3 0–0 15.Qh3 h6 16.Qxe6+ Qxe6 17.Rxe6 Kf7 18.Rae1 Rfe8 (18...Rae8? 19.Nb5) 19.Bh4 g5! but this position looked dull to me, so I had decided to play the text move, 11. Na3.

11...0–0–0
12.Bg5
Now my much-loved book on this opening, Palliser's The Bb5 Sicilian, gives 12. Bg5 an exclam here, although it does not consider my opponent's response at all. The alternative is 12. b4, which is played two moves later in Palliser's root game Pfretzschner - Forsberg corr. 1992, but is not mention by Palliser as a possibility on move 12, even though it's the more common move. Next time I will play it, assuming, of course, that I remember.

12.b4 Qg4 (12...cxb4 13.Nc2 bxc3 14.Nd4 I saw one game, in fact I showed it as a lesson to some kids, where white did this funny maneuver, but it was after Bg5, h6, Bxf6 gxf6 was thrown in. ) 13.Qd3 e6 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Qb5 Bosboom - Brenninkmeijer 1991 0 –1

12...Qg4
13.Qxg4+ Nxg4
14.Bxe7 Bxe7
15.Rxe7 Rd7
16.Re2 Nf6

He offered a draw somewhere around here.
17.c4 Re8
18.Rxe8+ Nxe8
19.Re1 Kd8
Now I couldn't decide if I wanted my knight on c2, from where it can go to e3 /f5?!, or on c3
20.Nc2 [20.Nb5 a6 21.Nc3 Re7 22.Kf1]
20...Re7
21.Re3 Rxe3
22.Nxe3 g6
23.g4

I offered the draw here. I was worried that he could play a6 and b5, then bring the king to the queenside and attack my two weak pawns on c4 and a2. We looked at it after the game and found a lot of good lines for him, but I don't remember them anymore and the computer thinks I'm fine. Of course I can always meet a6 with a4 anyway... ½–½

PS Sorry I know that was boring.

Pautsky - Vicary US Open round 7

Pautsky,Noel (1540) - Vicary,Elizabeth (2099) [E11]
US Open (7), 19.08.2008

1.d4 Nf6
2.c4 e6
3.Nf3 Bb4+
4.Bd2 Qe7
5.a3 [5.g3 and 5.Nc3 are more common] 5...Bxd2+
6.Nbxd2 d6
7.e3 e5
8.dxe5 dxe5
9.Be2
9...e4?
I thought I was achieving something with this, because I feel like black often tries to push the e pawn in connection with a kingside attack in these types of positions. But I think I should first castle and play Nc6, so his knight can't go to d4. This way I don't have to play ...c5, which actually makes a pretty serious weakness on d5.

10.Nd4 c5?!
11.Nb5 a6? And really, why am I spending a tempo to push the knight to c3 where it is better placed? Of course at the time I thought I was gaining a tempo, but that's very silly stereotypic thinking on my part.

12.Nc3 0–0
13.Qc2 Re8 [On 13...Bf5 I was worried about 14.g4]
14.Rd1 Bf5
15.0–0

15...Nbd7

I couldn't decide if I wanted the knight here on or c6. The advantages to d7 are that I can maybe go via f8 to the kingside, and that the knight will not be attacked by a white pawn if one gets to d5.

15...Nc6 16.Nd5 Qe5 17.Qb3 This variation is why I rejected 15...Nc6. I thought I would have to play 17...Rb8 here and that didn't fit in with my narrative of playing a smooth, controlled win against a 1500.

16.Rfe1 Rad8? Probably a strategic mistake in the sense that bringing a rook to d8 is eventually going to lead to an exchange of all rooks (and then queens?) on the d file. Since I have more space and a potential kingside attack, I want to avoid exchanges. Perhaps 16...h5?

17.Nf1

While he was thinking about this, I was looking at 17.f3 (or 17. f4, because I guess I have to take it?) 17... exf3 18.Qxf5 Qxe3+ (18...fxe2 19.Rxe2) 19.Kh1 fxe2 20.Rxe2 Qh6. I was a little nervous about this because while I knew I should be better, being up a pawn, I felt temporarily uncoordinated and like something bad might happen. Of course I can also not take the pawn immediately. (18...fxe2)

17...Bg6 stopping f3/f4... for good, but maybe a big waste of time, especially because my bishop might become quite bad there.

18.Rd2 Ne5

19.Red1

19...h5
19...Nf3+ 20.gxf3 exf3 21.Bd3 Qe6! Alex found this immediately after the game. There's no good defense. 22.Ne2 then best is 22...Nh5 (But also good is: 22...fxe2 23.Rxe2 Qg4+ 24.Ng3 h5) when the threat is simply 23... Qh3 24.Nf4 Nxf4 25.exf4 Qg2#]

20.Rxd8
I was expecting 20.Ng3 and had planned 20...h4 21.Ngxe4 Nxe4 22.Nxe4 Rxd2 23.Rxd2 h3 (23...Nxc4) 24.g3 (24.gxh3 Qh4)
and/or
20... h4 21. Rxd8 Rxd8 22.Rxd8+ Qxd8 23.Ngxe4 Nxe4 24.Nxe4 h3 25.g3 (25.gxh3 Qh4) 25...Bxe4 26.Qxe4 Qd2 27.Qxe5 Qxe2 28.Qe8+ Kh7 29.Qe4+ somehow in my head here I thought I could play g6-- I didn't see Qh4 won the h3 pawn-- and I thought I had good chances, but the truth is he has perpetual... 29...Kg8 30.Qe8+ etc.

20...Rxd8 21.Rxd8+ Qxd8 22.Qd2 So now I made a bad practical decision, although I'm not sure I would do differently next time. I saw that the endgame after trading queens is very hard to win. My bishop is not any better than his, in reality. So I tried to find something to avoid this, but nothing is great.

22...Nfd7 I knew this was a bad move, and I understood when I played it that Qd5 was a great response and not so hard to see. I just figured I would take my chances and try to trick the guy somehow. Alternatives are dismal: 22...Qb6 23.Na4 Qc7 or 22...Qe7 23.Nd5 Qe6 24.Nxf6+ Qxf6 25.Qd5]

23.Qd5 Qh4 24.Qxb7
I was hoping for 24.g3 Qh3. Unfortunately, even with this I have no threats.
24...Nf6?? 25. Qb8. I'm an idiot. 1–0

First the Feet

The museum said the 3-foot-tall sculpture has nothing to do with religion, but is an ironic self-portrait of the artist and an expression of his angst.
"With humor and a tragicomic sense, which belongs to art since the times of Greek tragedy, Kippenberger ... faces his condition of suffering, which he expresses in many works, also, for example, in a video in which he crucifies himself," the museum said in a statement.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26435994/

Also don't miss the exploits of other US Chess celebrities....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26452779/

and

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/29/its_hub_nyc_chess_match_with_trash_talk_fans_logos/?page=1
(nonsensical? Judas!)