More Fun From the New York Times

Today's New York Times chess blog posting, "Second Computer Expert Offers Opinion on Report at Base of USCF Lawsuit," http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/second-computer-expert-offers-opinion-on-report-at-base-of-uscf-lawsuit/#more-155 continues McClain's trademark style of fairly objective-sounding news reporting followed by a hilariously bitchy final quote.

Today's article has several experts agreeing that Mottershead's report, which asserted Truong's guilt, was correct (or, at the very least, sounded really great). Then at the very end, just to be completely, irreproachably objective, McClain quotes one final expert who agrees only 99% that PT is to blame. McClain explains that "while he (the expert--EV) agreed that the person identified as “chesspromotion” on the federation’s internal forum Web site was the author of the fake postings, “I am not able to identify the real person behind user account ‘chesspromotion’.”"


hmm....

The New York Times Cracks Me Up

I don't usually enjoy reading about chess in newspapers for two reasons:
1. I've normally already read about whatever happened on a chess site and
2. It's written for a general audience, which means the chess bits are dumbed way down.

Consequently, I haven't been reading Dylan Loeb McClain's chess articles/ blog in the New York Times on a particularly regular basis. But today I realized that I should start, because he possesses a very special journalistic knack. You know what that is? In fact, let's make it a quiz. Your question is:

"What's similar and hilarious about how McClain writes the following articles?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?scp=17&sq=mcclain+dylan
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/interview-with-the-uscf-president-a-chess-sponsor-says-hes-had-enough/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/crosswords/chess/15chess.html?scp=1&sq=mcclain+dylan

and just so you don't see the answer before you're ready, here are two big pictures and another couple question(s):

1. Name the two chessplayers in this photo. For a bonus point, where are they?



2. Name the snorkeler.

The way I see it, in each piece, McClain maintains a seemingly impartial tone, yet manages, usually at the very end of the article, to quote someone saying something that makes them look really really bad:

In the first, Paul Truong as shifty equivocator: "The charges are absolutely outrageous, and it is based on information that was obtained 100 percent illegally from the U.S.C.F.”

In the second, Eric Moskow as self-important ass: “When you are very wealthy you want the people associated with you dodging bullets, not creating them ... I can’t be wasting my time wondering if some child is posting something and another child is responding ... All I want to do is give my money away and play chess. .... The only good memories I have of giving money to chess in the U.S. are the scoresheets and the games.” (the scoresheets and the games? ev)

And finally, Sam Sloan as, well, he puts it best: ... "Mr. Sloan said, 'For as long as I live, I will be known as a child pornographer.'”

Just beautiful. Also, I should mention that the Times broke this story.

I'll post the photo answers in a couple days, but I imagine you'll also find them in the comments soon.

Help Us Out Here

I, ok, actually my friends, need a few things. Can anyone help us out?

1. An teacher friend of mine is looking for a full time chess instructor gig anywhere in the country. He's 1800, has 9 years of experience, and is reliable, professional, and fabulous with kids. I recommend him very highly.

2. A grandmaster friend of mine wants to visit New York for a month or so and needs a room/apartment. He'll give you some lessons, and/ or feed your cats.

3. A female 2100 friend of mine is looking for a fun team for Amateur East.

Anyone?

Are You Free This Friday?

If you are and you live in New York, I'm inviting you to my school's Friday Night Chess Club. It runs from 5-8 pm, and features 2 rated g/30s, free pizza and gym time. You'll be playing kids in rated games, but the kids are 0-1900. .


Send me an email if you're coming and I'll reply with directions. evicarynospam@yahoo.com. (remove nospam)

FROG KING

I am the Champion of Bloggers and (maybe also?!) the King of the FROGS?! (http://usclnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/blogger-of-year-award.html)

No, but seriously, folks, I would like to thank all my loyal readers out there, especially the ones who comment and vote in my poll(s)!

But I have to extend a special thank you to one man, without whom my blog would be much less amusing, without whom I never would have "garnered over 80 responses," as Greg gushes so effusively in his announcement of my world-shifting triumph, without whom I never would have won.

I have to say a big,

heart-felt

thank you

to Ilya Krasik

for his entirely inimitable, unfailingly hilarious comments.

Without Ilya, I never could have defeated Bostonblitz.com so convincingly in the USCL Blogger of the Year Award! Thanks, Ilya! I owe you one!

And one last thing I wanted to say....

.

.

.

.

In your face, Boston

North American Open: Rounds Six and Seven: I Am a Proud, Lucky Champion and I Love Chess Again

In round six I'm paired with the talented Christian Tanaka, who has the best board manners of any kid I've ever played. He's beating me in a Bogo Indian, the opening in which I am the luckiest, when we both hit time pressure.

Here I play the desperate but optimistic 40... Bh3+, hoping of course for 41. Kxh3 Nf4+ 42. gxf4 Qg4#. He answers 41. Kh1, and I played 41.... Qe3. Now 42. Qe2 crushes all my dreams, since 42... Qxc5 loses to 43. Ra8+ Kh7/f7 44. Qxh5 and I'm getting mated. After the game Alex suggested 41... Bg4 was a better chance to swindle, which is true but of course it's losing also. Christian played 42. b7?? when 42... Nf2 forces 43. Qxf2, since 43. Kg1 Nd1 44. Kh1 Qe1 is mate. After 43... Qxf2 44. b8=Q Kh7, he had to resign, since there's no defence against 45. Qg2.

Finally, two interesting moments from my last round with Robert Akopian.

I spent a lot of time here trying to make
20.Ng5 work. The idea is that if 20...fxg5 I play 21.Rxf7 Kxf7 (21...Rxe2 22.Rxg7+ Kxg7 23.Qxe2-- I'm attacking his knight and threatening Ne6.) 22.Bc4+ Nd5 23. Rxe3, when his king is weak, my pieces are good, his pawns are doubled, and he has some weak squares, like e6. Very unfortunately, the move is refuted by 20... Bd5, when 21.Nge4 loses to 21.... b6, 21.Nge6 to 21...Rxe6; and 21.Qd2 to 21...Re5, when I can't play 22. dxe5 because 22...Bxg2 wins my queen. Sad, no? But good job me for seeing this!

I play 20. Nd2; the game progresses; things go steadily downhill for me until we reach this position

where he plays the overly fancy 32...Nd1. I respond 33.Nd3 Bg3 34.Qe4 Look at my queen! So centralized! You know what I thought here? I couldn't see how he was going to stop me winning his knight with Qe2, but it turns out that in addition to the move in the game he has 34... Qc4, when 35.Qe2 loses to 35... Nf2. Good thing that didn't happen. Also 34... Nf2 is ok, of course. 34...Qa2. And now look at my nice drawing trick: 35.Qe8+ Kg7 36.Qe7+ Kg8 37.Qe8+ ½–½. I agree that's not a trick, it's just a repetition, but the idea is that 36.. Kh6 loses to 37. Nf4 Bxf4 38. g4#, and 36.... Qf7 lets me win his knight for some pawns after 37. Qe2 Qb3 38. Nc1.

I finished with 2.5/7, which is moderately lame, but, ok, I knew I was going to be rusty, and somehow I gained six points anyway. Next tournament: Liberty Bell in Philadephia in 3 weeks, where I will endeavor to move quickly and achieve positions with fixed pawn structures.

North American Open Part Three: Delusions of Grandeur

I had played Eugene Yanayt a few months ago in the New England Masters. Before that game, some people (I can't remember precisely who, but let's say Dave and Josh Friedel and probably Elliott Liu and possibly others) were explaining to me that Eugene's nickname is Zen Master, because he's completely focused and undistractable, and that even if I appeared at the board wearing a bikini, he would not bat an eyelash. Notice that I was not considering doing this. But somehow it had come up because Elliott's next opponent had a strange obsession with water, so there was some distraction/amusement scheme in the works that involved multiple towels and trips to the shower. It never actually happened, any of this.

I lost that game also but it was an interesting Bogo Indian. So I was surprised when Zen M played 1. c4.

(180) Yanayt,Eugene - Vicary,Elizabeth [A30]
North American Open Las Vegas (3), 27.12.2007
1.c4 c5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Nxd4 e6
5.Nc2? How strange.
5... Qb6 After the game, Alex mentioned that point of playing Qb6 is to make the knight on d4 move, so it's stupid to play it after 5. Nc2. I somehow had convinced myself that my idea was to play Qb6 and Bc5, making white play e3 before getting out the Bc1, but that's just an insane fantasy on my part since the queen is vunerable on b6 to Nc3-a4 and white can just play e3 and then e4 later or something.

6.Nc3 Nf6 [If I play 6...Bc5 first he just goes 7.Ne4]
7.Rb1 Bc5
8.e3

8...0–0

8...d5 was my other idea. I get lots of compensation if he takes the pawn: 9.cxd5 exd5 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Qxd5? Be6 12.Qe4 0–0 13.Bd3 g6 14.b3 Bf5 15.Qc4 Ne5.

But he can play the same idea as in the game: 9. b4 and now I have to grovel with 9...Be7 10.c5 Qc7 I don't really know how to assess this, since I refuse to turn on Fritz and Dave hasn't told me what to think yet. I didn't see it during the game because I missed his idea of taking on b4 completely. If I try to take with 9...Nxb4 10.Nxb4 Bxb4 11.Bd2 Qc5 12.Rxb4 Qxb4 13.Nxd5, it's the same as in the game only worse. So why didn't I play 8...d5? I just figured I'd castle first and then play it.

Notice that 8...a5 is ugly for me: 9.Na4 Qa7 (9...Bb4+ 10.Nxb4 Qxb4+ 11.Bd2 Qe7 12.Nb6) 10.Nxc5 Qxc5 11.b3 and I have big problems on dark squares.

9.b4 Nxb4

10.Nxb4 Bxb4

11.Bd2 Qc5

At this moment Jesse Kraai walked past. He glanced at my position, visibly winced, and gave me a pitying look. Of course, I had no idea what was going on, but it was now apparent to me that I ought to be very concerned.

12.Rxb4! Qxb4

13.Nd5 Nxd5

All the lines are ugly, but one typical one goes 13...Qa3 14.Bb4 Qxa2 15.Nxf6+ gxf6 16.Qg4+ Kh8 17.Bxf8 Qb1+ 18.Ke2 Qc2+ 19.Kf3

The best try is 13...Qd6 14.Bb4 Qe5 15.Bc3 Qg5 16.h4 Qh6 17.Nxf6+ gxf6 18.Rh3 and now something like 18...e5 allows 19.Qd6 ... oh whatever... he has multiple ways to win...

14.Bxb4 Nxb4
15.Qd6
and let's just stop here and say white didn't have too many problems converting.


On to round four, where I am paired with Rodelay Medina, who I vaguely recall knowing from many years ago.

Medina,Rodelay - Vicary,Elizabeth [B22]
North American Open Las Vegas, 31.12.2007
1.e4 c5
2.d4 cxd4
3.c3 Nf6
4.e5 Nd5
5.Qxd4 e6
6.Nf3 Nc6
7.Qe4 f5
8.exf6 Nxf6
9.Qh4

So far I'm very happy, still in the realm of knowing what I'm supposed to be doing and not having to do any difficult (as we know, almost impossible for me) original thinking. But here I mess up.

9...Be7
Of course I remember immediately after this move that the bishop is supposed to be on d6 so my king has the e7 square

The correct line goes 9...d5 10.Bd3 Bd6 11.Bg5 (11.Bg6+ Ke7 12.Bc2 h6 13.Bg6 Bd7) 11...Kf7 12.0–0 h6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qxf6+ gxf6]

10.Bd3 0–0

11.g4

I expected 11.Bg5 h6 12.Bxf6 when I was going to play Rxf6.

"What? Why not 12...Bxf6!?" -- this is Alex and Todd laughing at me afterwards: "What are you afraid of?? One check? Hahahhaha. I WANT him to put his queen on h7. HAHHAHAHA" Now, I don't want you to think I'm complaining here. Obviously any chessplayer would kill to be able to show their games to a strong player(s) whenever they want and I'm incredibly lucky etc., but man, you sure do have to get used to feeling like the stupidest person in the room basically all the time.

13.Qe4 g6 This was my intention but it's bad, or at least it's scary (13...d5 Is very good for black also, same attitude as in the last line) 14.Qe3 Qf8 15.h4 alright, I caved and turned on Fritz, who says it's good. Whatever. Fritz doesn't understand what it's like.

11...Ne4

Alex was advocating 11....e5 based on the following variation 12.g5 e4 13.gxf6 Bxf6 14.Ng5 h6 15.Qxe4 Re8 but look what Fritz finds: 16.Bc4+! Kh8 17.Nf7+ Kg8 18.Nxd8+. Craziness.

12.g5 d5
13.Bxe4 dxe4
14.Qxe4 Qd5

Now I thought I was being hot shit with Qd5, mostly because I had seen it when I played Ne4, but really his king is so weak that I should keep queens on and play e5 instead: 14...e5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.Qxe5 and I have lots of great ideas: 16...Qb6 (16...Qd3; 16...Bh3) 17.0–0 Bh3]

15.Qxd5 exd5
16.Nd4 Ne5
17.0–0 Bh3

17...Nd3 This just wins a pawn. I saw it in the game, but somehow it did not fit in with my self-important desire to punish my opponent for attacking me so unreasonably.


18.Re1 Nd3

19.Re3
So here I faced a big choice. The great tragedy is that I saw this beautiful line: 19...Nxf2 20.Rxe7 Ne4 21.Nd2 Rf2 22.N4f3 Rf8 23.Rxe4 Rg2+ 24.Kh1 dxe4 25.Nxe4 Rxf3, mating, but I chickened out of playing it. Why did I chicken out? I think the truthful answer is that I couldn't see anything after 22... Rf8 but I felt like I might be missing a good move for white. On top of that, I liked the line I played and thought it was safer.

Now the reality is that there is a hole in the above line, but there is also a big improvement for black before the hole. White saves himself with 22. Rxe4 Rg2+ 23. Kh1 dxe4 24. Nc4! However, 20... Nd3 instead of 20...Ne4 is completely winning.

Another pseudo attractive line was 19...Bxg5 20.Rxd3 Bxc1 21.Rxh3 Bxb2 but after 22.Nb3 Rae8 23.Kf1 Bxa1 24.Nxa1 I just didn't see why he couldn't get his knights out.

19. ...Nxc1

20.Rxh3 Bxg5

21.Na3 Rae8

22.Kf1 Rf6

23.Rf3 Ref8

So by now I'm in my normal absurd time pressure and my moves cease making any sense.

24.Kg2 Bd2

25.Nac2 Rg6+

26.Kf1 Rgf6

27.Rxf6 Rxf6

28.Nb3 Nd3 [28...Nxb3 29.axb3 a6 30.Rd1 Bf4=]

29.Ke2 Nxb2

30.Nxd2 1-0

Oh goodness. I was starting to feel like maybe it wasn't a huge tragedy, and I was playing myself into shape. Then I lost the next game, and was getting beat by Christian Tanaka when I slimed him. That will be coming up in the next post. Very chess heavy, I'm being these days, no? I'm sure it's what my readers read my blog for, right?

North American Open Round Two: Why Am I Such a Huge Baby?

So round two I'm playing IM Mezentsev. The opening confused me, of course I couldn't remember what I was supposed to be doing, and then I seemed to be in a lot of trouble. What I couldn't work out was why my position started off bad, but then I made some weakish moves, he made some quite decent moves, and suddenly I seemed to be doing rather well. It's not supposed to go like that, right?

By the time we reach the diagrammed position, things have picked up for me, but having spent a large part of the game getting glasses of water, feeling sorry for myself and considering the larger problems in my life, I am stupidly short of time.

My first thought is 38. Qd7, threatening both to take on e7 and to play Qe8-f7. But then I see he has 38...Qc5, so I panic, look wildly around, spot Qa7 and fail to notice it hangs e6. Of course 38. Qd7 Qc5 39. Ne3 is actually quite nice for me, by which I mean it's an immediate draw after 39... Re1 40. Nf5 Qxf5 41. Qxe7.

I am such a stupid retarded disgusting mindless child. Is that really so hard to see? Am I really incapable of calculating simple captures? I officially hate myself.

But enough about me. Let's talk about what other people think of me. I had two experiences lately in which people have told me how I play. That's always a strange thing to happen because it's hard to know what your own style is: it always seems to me like I'm just trying to make the best move. Each move is just an uneducated guess, a stab in complete darkness; there's no real agenda, much less style, behind any of it.

So after the last round Dennis Monokrousis comes over to where I'm analysing with my nice opponent, Robert Akopian, and expresses surprise that I'm not attacking him. I look at him quizzically, and he explains to Robert, "She's always been a carnivore as long as I've known her." Now, I'm immediately suspicious of this for two reasons:

1. Everyone always seems to think women are crazy attackers.

2. To my knowledge, Dennis has never seen me play a game of chess before.

But ok, maybe he's secretly studying my games. And maybe he's right; how would I know? It's not like I have some huge insight. In any case, when I got home I was amused to read Braden Bournival's "Player Analysis" of me.

http://bradenbournival.com/chess_players/elizabeth_vicary/

Strengths: Eliz.. I mean Liz is very good at positions where she knows what she's supposed to be doing. She definitely does better in positional games where the pawn structure in the center is established.

Weaknesses: Elizabeth is much weaker when she needs to come up with her own plan at the board. If she gets an unfamiliar position out of the opening where she has to do this, she has trouble. This is why she does much better with fixed pawn structures because the plans don't change.

Now, this is clearly a huge insult. I'm a mindless robot who can only follow directions and gets easily confused? How sad. Even worse, Brad almost certainly got this insight into me from my coach, Dave. (Could he be angry at me because I haven't taken lessons lately? I'm sorry, Dave! I've been so busy!) Unfortunately, I think they're probably right. I wonder if there are any special exercises I can do to become an independant thinker.

Next round: I think I've out-strategized the Zen Master, but fall flat on my face.

North American Open, Part One

Hello, blog readers! I caught the red eye last night back from Vegas, where I had a poor performance but an amusing time. I'm too tired to tell you everything now, but hopefully over the next few days ....

So round one I'm playing GM Anatoly Lein. Things are not going well for me: I forget my opening preparation as usual and so I'm down a pawn for nothing with white after 15 moves.

But I'm distracted from this because two boards over, Dennis Monokrousis is a little worse against an expert, in some time pressure, and becoming agitated. His opponent writes his next move down, and Dennis blurts out, "You aren't allowed to write the move down before you make it. It's illegal." So I immediately look away because, of course, this is a hilarious thing to say and I'm in danger of laughing. Not only is it the stupidest rule ever, but Goichburg has publicly refused to enforce it at CCA tournaments and the USCF recently repealed the change anyway. Dennis's opponent contritely apologizes, which gets me thinking: "Exactly what would Anatoly Lein do and say right now if I were to tell him he couldn't write down the move before making it?" If you don't know Mr. Lein, he's a venerable if cantankerous old Russian dude who has been playing chess for at least sixty years. I happen to like him a lot, but it would be fair to say he doesn't suffer fools gladly. So my fantasy of his reaction amused me for quite a while.

And then something strange happens. I am completely lost by this point, but Mr. Lein is getting inexplicably low on time. The position isn't so complicated; I have a few pseudo-threats, but nothing really serious. When he has 50 seconds left for five moves, the clock dies. Just goes blank. Lein furrows his eyebrows, picks the clock up, shakes it vigorously, and it starts working again as if nothing happened. I just smile at him and nod. The game continues.

And then his flag falls on move 39 so I stop the clock and he asks me what I think I'm doing. I point out that he hasn't made forty moves, to which he replies, "But you haven't either." Of course, this was true, but since I still had some time, it didn't matter. Lein didn't seem entirely convinced, but there wasn't much he could do. Later, Alex runs into him as he's leaving the playing hall: "He kept saying 'We both flagged, I don't know why they are insisting that I am the only one who lost.'"

As funny as I found the whole thing, it's not a win I'm proud of. Lein both forgot to set time delay and managed to start his clock first (he was black), so the move counter said 41 when it was really still his fortieth move. Plus I was hopelessly lost. But obviously I don't feel too bad--as someone's ICC notes once pointed out "I am not responsible for my opponent completing his moves in the allotted time."

but if he was....

Canada’s PM: Dalai Lama ‘is not a call girl’

Harper adds in TV interview ‘he’s a respected international spiritual leader’

OTTAWA - When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to explain in a year-end interview why he'd met the Dalai Lama in his Ottawa office, it was clear he wanted to show respect for the exiled Tibetan leader.

Unfortunately, it didn't quite come out that way.

"I met the Dalai Lama in my office, but I meet everyone in my office. I don't know why I would sneak off to a hotel room just to meet the Dalai Lama. You know, he's not a call girl," Harper told OMNI television....

Harper's chief spokeswoman did not respond to a query as to if the prime minister regretted his choice of words in the interview.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22349737/