| |
Main
Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:00:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
Monkey Play Chess in USA, 2009
The USCF forum has about 60 letters from members discussing the Armageddon
final of the 2008 woman's championship. There is much disagreement on what
the rules actually were, and if one or both players broke them, and
additionally, what role the TD played?
Immediately after the event this Parrot exchanged about 4,000 words with the
TD and event organizer, seeking clarification of these issues - and was met
by a defensive set of responses which even took no note of the widespread
condemnation of this sort of chess as published at Chessbase.
The USCF forum seems to repeat the strong dislike of Armageddon Blitz,
especially deployed to decide national championships.
But USCF's responses were to deny what European players and TDs said at
Chessbase, which was not particularly partisan, pro-Krush or pro-Zatonskih,
but more to the point of bringing the game into disrepute by degrading it.
Now that the air has cleared, the only visible initiative from chess
officials is the mostly incomprehensible message posted on the forum by
President Bill Goichberg - an 'explanation' which even forum readers thought
might be posted in the wrong thread.
The question remains: Who adopted the FIDE rules into the US chess
championship, and do officials think that players might be allowed to
influence their own game - since players at home and abroad have roundly
condemned this sort of play-off?
The current Monkey Play-by-Play video shows the eventual winner making 3
moves in 1 second to win by 1 second. Those are not the only 'infractions'
but that is almost impossible to do. Can the other player actually have
released the piece? If not then its not a matter of pressing the clock but
of touch-move rule. What if a player did not release a piece while the other
player touched their piece, is the second player still obliged to move it?
The inanity of these blitz rules make monkey-business of most chess rules.
The point of all is that this style of game resolution invites controversy,
and if Irina Krush had complained at every opportunity the clock would have
been stopped more often than at a game of American football. Is that what we
want?
Whose game is it? Should TDs actually respect what players want for rules,
especially to avoid demeaning the game? After all, its the players who have
to perform - why should the game be degraded by officials, and player's
wishes ignored?
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 08:12:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
On Sep 3, 9:06=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > =A0Recall that when Dorothy attempted to speak
> > with the Wizard, she was summarily told to, in
> > essence, commit hari kiri by messing with the
> > witch of the West.
> I /do/ remember that, but not their ratings - do you have the game score?
From memory (no Blair-quote): Dorothy 1,
wicked witch of the West 0. Game, set,
and match.
> >> See above - I would say that those 3 Ks would be hard to say no to. Of
> >> course, if there is no survey, nor any interest in a survey, why shoul=
d
> >> officialdom conduct one? USCf don't even admit there is a problem. Of
> >> course, they are understandably too busy to attend with the national
> >> championship, and attend to their lawyers - and we know what is more
> >> important.
> > =A0Don't forget about their main job-- infighting!
> They would do far better outsourcing their infighting - for example, I co=
uld
> negotiate with them that you and I do it, mostly in secret while smiling =
in
> public for as little as $100k a year, which I would split 60/40 with you.
> This would be as least as cheap as lawyers, and quicker.
Since you are handling all the negotiations,
that seems fair. Let's see... after taxes, that
would mean I should be able to eat meat three
times a week!
> >> Your friend Larry Parr says it was ever so. A class of burocrats
Have you ever heard the sound of fingernails
being raked across a chalkboard? If so, then
you have /some idea/ of what it's like to read
your -- and coincidentally, Rob Mitchell's --
rendition of the term "bureaucrats".
> >> attending only to their own administrative needs and personal status.
> > =A0I think Mr. Parr was side-tracked by a certain
> > notion of elitism; his world-view was, like yours,
> > that if a Bobby Fischer wanted something
> > changed, by golly, it ought to be changed.
> While you may be correct for Mr. Parr, who I take the liberty of not
> defending here, given his propensity to evolve adequate compensatory
> responses himself, I should still wish to point out that historically mos=
t
> strong players were given the run-around if they got too close with their
> precious opinions about their own game.
It was quite a mess. But if you take a
historical perspective, looking back to the
era of private-negotiations regarding the
highest title (checkers champion of the
world?), you may find that things are no
worse than they were before the advent
of FIDE. Granted, they are also no
better.
> > =A0To me, there is nothing so crystaline as the
> > example wherein a young Larry Evans -- friend
> > and trainer to BF -- pointed out the unfairness
> > of the so-called demands, being made of a
> > FIDE that was torn between different poles,
> > by the challenger-- a reversal of the normal
> > pattern. =A0Most of the talking heads back then
> > allowed their own personal bias to overwhelm
> > all else, and this concept of elitism was at
> > the very root of the problem, right there with
> > bias and stupidity (i.e. Mr. Kalme's published
> > idiocy).
> Unfortunately, this is too limited a survey to make general agreement
> about - except to note 3 things:
>
> 1) that Fischer may well have acted in a less than mature way, yet /becau=
se/
> he was so singular and even isolated a case, it is easy to point out his
> mistakes, and even lampoon him for his challenge [which the then Russian
> Fide did not restrain themselves from doing]
I believe it was actually Max Euwe -- a European --
who was at the helm of FIDE in those days. So you
see, the claim that FIDE was Russian is as wrong-
headed as admitting that the French Defense is
quite playable, or that cows are pink or purple.
> 2) Subsequently other players had to resolve their conflicts by the same
> pretty-isolated means - both W Chs Polgar and Karpov sued Fide, Kasparov =
and
> Short tried a break-away failing means of agreement with what had become =
in
> effect a big chess business with franchises.
The way the world works is this: *nothing* that
happens after the fact can in any way affect an
event. This sharply conflicts with ideas of the
infamous "scientist" Albert Einstein, who saw
time as relative, length as something which
was a handy device by which to trick physics
mathematicians, etc. It's not my fault that
time goes *steadily* in a forward direction;
that is the fault of whoever made things the
way they are.
> 3) The emergence and burocratic potency of a Kalme is merely symptomatic =
of
> the whole burocratic shebang - and I doubt his particular form of idiocy =
is
> any degree greater than other Fide office perform 'for us'.
As far as I know, the only relationship of Mr.
Kalme to the issue was his writing an article
which was published in Chess Lies magazine.
His ties to bureaucracy are largely irrelevant
in this respect, but it hardly surprises me to
find one of the Evans ratpackers so confused.
> > =A0In one sense, the best thing that could
> > happen is for the USCF to fail-- to collapse,
> > to make way for something better. =A0The very
> > structure of this organization seems to lead
> > inexorably to infighting, jealousies and now,
> > to never-ending lawsuits.
> Again, your friend Mr. Parr did predict that means of resolution at the
> beginning of the Goichberg-era as we know it.
Well, unless he put a time-limit on his
"prediction", it doesn't impress. People have
been predicting things since time immemorial,
but unless they are willing to commit, to add
a specific which can be tested and measured
as right or wrong, it has no substance.
Let me give you an example; suppose I
were to "predict" that the moon woul *not*
crash into the Earth? As you can see, I
would always be "right", since if this ever
happened we would all be dead and no one
could say I was wrong. I would perpetually
be correct-- or so it would /appear/ -- in this
prediction, year after year.
> About 10 years ago I think these types of conversation did not revolve
> around USCF at all - but they did around Fide. They became especially
> intense when that communist activist began to report on matters in Kalmyk=
ia,
> and was subsequently murdered ion an alley there. This put the damper on
> /direct/ investigation for some time.
Rumors that the ruler of Kalmykia was all-
powerful were squashed when Mr. Parr later
managed to survive after having broadly
criticized the Khan; indeed, there are
pictures of LP standing on the Great Wall
of China -- a handy pushing-off-to-one's-
death location.
If you visit the Web site of the notorious
organization FIDE, you may find a marked
resemblance to another site of a similar tilt
-- both sites proclaim the astounding "fact"
that their creator is the greatest human who
ever lived, and then proceed to give a
seemingly never-ending list of chess-related
accomplishments.
One key difference may lie in in the way
critics are handled, though... . ; >D
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 12:23:15
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sep 3, 9:06 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Recall that when Dorothy attempted to speak
> > with the Wizard, she was summarily told to, in
> > essence, commit hari kiri by messing with the
> > witch of the West.
> I /do/ remember that, but not their ratings - do you have the game score?
From memory (no Blair-quote): Dorothy 1,
wicked witch of the West 0. Game, set,
and match.
The Witch, laugh, probably played the Damiano, thought she was a Knight up!
Instead of giving up 2 pawns as well as permitting a crushing attack. I
wonder if the Witch ever went to Brooklyn? Dorothy as a plain plains gal
didn't need any 'clever' instructions - and figured out all by herself that
throwing the h pawn not the f pawn would put her up 40-15.
> They would do far better outsourcing their infighting - for example, I
> could
> negotiate with them that you and I do it, mostly in secret while smiling
> in
> public for as little as $100k a year, which I would split 60/40 with you.
> This would be as least as cheap as lawyers, and quicker.
Since you are handling all the negotiations,
that seems fair. Let's see... after taxes, that
would mean I should be able to eat meat three
times a week!
Yeah, I calculated the same amount. To save time going to the store, I
thoughfully can arange for you to receive 3 large steaks delivered to your
mail-box! All you need to do is sign a form which insists you use the same
attorney in any potential dispute as I do, and additionally I can only
dispute you, not you me, which would be unethical on your part.
> >> Your friend Larry Parr says it was ever so. A class of burocrats
Have you ever heard the sound of fingernails
being raked across a chalkboard? If so, then
you have /some idea/ of what it's like to read
your -- and coincidentally, Rob Mitchell's --
rendition of the term "bureaucrats".
The former Boris Mitchellovsky? We don't use French spellings, which are
considered, er, effete, where we come from.
========
It was quite a mess. But if you take a
historical perspective, looking back to the
era of private-negotiations regarding the
highest title (checkers champion of the
world?), you may find that things are no
worse than they were before the advent
of FIDE. Granted, they are also no
better.
That's like saying the USCF has not added any membership since the days of
Fischer, except in direct proportion to population growth. (actually, its
not like that, but its close. if only Our Taylor were here - he is far
superior to me at mixed syllogisms)
===
> Unfortunately, this is too limited a survey to make general agreement
> about - except to note 3 things:
>
> 1) that Fischer may well have acted in a less than mature way, yet
> /because/
> he was so singular and even isolated a case, it is easy to point out his
> mistakes, and even lampoon him for his challenge [which the then Russian
> Fide did not restrain themselves from doing]
I believe it was actually Max Euwe -- a European --
who was at the helm of FIDE in those days. So you
see, the claim that FIDE was Russian is as wrong-
headed as admitting that the French Defense is
quite playable, or that cows are pink or purple.
**Well, look, in those times the 'helmsman' had the same as on many sailing
ships, 2 positions, the on-top one that you could see icebergs from, and the
lower one, safely protected from stormy weather, way-below decks.
> 2) Subsequently other players had to resolve their conflicts by the same
> pretty-isolated means - both W Chs Polgar and Karpov sued Fide, Kasparov
> and
> Short tried a break-away failing means of agreement with what had become
> in
> effect a big chess business with franchises.
The way the world works is this: *nothing* that
happens after the fact can in any way affect an
event. This sharply conflicts with ideas of the
infamous "scientist" Albert Einstein, who saw
time as relative, length as something which
was a handy device by which to trick physics
mathematicians, etc. It's not my fault that
time goes *steadily* in a forward direction;
that is the fault of whoever made things the
way they are.
**I see you are a Darwin denier! If the critters evolve, do the rules for
evolution of critters also evolve? If critters are too complicated, try to
say if the field in which the first atom evolved preceded the first atom. Or
easiest of all, of unknown new elements, do the fields that determine their
to-be manifested nature already exist?
> Again, your friend Mr. Parr did predict that means of resolution at the
> beginning of the Goichberg-era as we know it.
Well, unless he put a time-limit on his
"prediction", it doesn't impress.
**I think he spoke of resolution or rule-by-lawyers
People have
been predicting things since time immemorial,
but unless they are willing to commit, to add
a specific which can be tested and measured
as right or wrong, it has no substance.
**So, STET! We do have evidence.
Let me give you an example; suppose I
were to "predict" that the moon woul *not*
crash into the Earth? As you can see, I
would always be "right", since if this ever
happened we would all be dead and no one
could say I was wrong. I would perpetually
be correct-- or so it would /appear/ -- in this
prediction, year after year.
**Yes, but you are lingering too near the hatch-door, since I proposed a
testable hypothesis based on what someone predicted, and what can be seen to
have happened. I know that it is inconvenient to admit to Mr. Parr being
correct, especially provable correct - in fact, that is highly unlikeable
behavior from anyone! Even so, as important social scientists making an
anthropological investigation of the weave and weft of chess, then and now,
we must admit his prediction almost certainly stemmed from his own pattern
recognition of chess wardrobeocrats, and, in short, was not luck.
> About 10 years ago I think these types of conversation did not revolve
> around USCF at all - but they did around Fide. They became especially
> intense when that communist activist began to report on matters in
> Kalmykia,
> and was subsequently murdered ion an alley there. This put the damper on
> /direct/ investigation for some time.
Rumors that the ruler of Kalmykia was all-
powerful were squashed when Mr. Parr later
managed to survive after having broadly
criticized the Khan; indeed, there are
pictures of LP standing on the Great Wall
of China -- a handy pushing-off-to-one's-
death location.
**Larry Parr in private conversation has refused to say 'yah or 'nay' to my
impertinent question: "Is that an action model of Larry Evans in the bag?"
If you visit the Web site of the notorious
organization FIDE, you may find a marked
resemblance to another site of a similar tilt
-- both sites proclaim the astounding "fact"
that their creator is the greatest human who
ever lived, and then proceed to give a
seemingly never-ending list of chess-related
accomplishments.
**You really have done your research! As an important American commentator
we underestimated your intelligence, but are still confident that the
take-over will go according to plan. You are, as I understand it, somewhere
in the middle of the continent, which we call The Great American Desert, or
Zone VI.
One key difference may lie in in the way
critics are handled, though... . ; >D
**I have no idea what you mean, and neither do our psychological profilers.
Instead of worrying so much, why not take a pleasant walk in the sunshine,
and remember your favorite place? Possibly a cool meadow near running water,
with blue birds, huge cornflowers and tropical butterflies. Do not respond
until you have taken the little green pill.
Phil Innes
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:26:46
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
Chess One wrote:
> In 1999 Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik in unison, attempted to speak with Fide
Recall that when Dorothy attempted to speak
with the Wizard, she was summarily told to, in
essence, commit hari kiri by messing with the
witch of the West. The solution is to send your
little dog to pull back the curtain, thereby ex-
posing the sham that is FIDE's CEO, CFO, and
head honcho.
> > Now, my eyesight is not so great, and my
> > internet connection may be herky-jerky at
> > times, but the video I saw had one of the
> > two players -- if not both -- obviously acting
> > illegally (i.e. cheating), over and over again.
>
> Someone did something technically advanced to improve viewing - but what
> happened as result is merely to confirm that both palyers erred. The major
> point is why deploy this type of finish when it is so fraught with
> likelihood of being controversial?
Perhaps the organizers were not clever
enough to envision a superior method by
which to avoid or break ties?
> <WW II snipped>
Oh no you don't! Readers may recall that
back in my day, we did not have the sort of
Mickey Mouse wars of today, but /real/,
meat-and-potatoes kinds of wars. As my
great-granddaddy used to say: "remember
Pearl Harbor!" More about this later.
> > First, you need to take a comprehensive
> > survey of the players you wish to represent.
> > Next, show us the results of your survey,
> > and /only then/ proceed to argue that such
> > players' wishes are in fact being "ignored".
>
> See above - I would say that those 3 Ks would be hard to say no to. Of
> course, if there is no survey, nor any interest in a survey, why should
> officialdom conduct one? USCf don't even admit there is a problem. Of
> course, they are understandably too busy to attend with the national
> championship, and attend to their lawyers - and we know what is more
> important.
Don't forget about their main job-- infighting!
> Your friend Larry Parr says it was ever so. A class of burocrats attending
> only to their own administrative needs and personal status.
I think Mr. Parr was side-tracked by a certain
notion of elitism; his world-view was, like yours,
that if a Bobby Fischer wanted something
changed, by golly, it ought to be changed. As
you say above, if three Big-Ks are in agreement,
then FIDE should take note. But there are often
times when the desires of the rich and famous
sharply clash with fairness, with decency, or
of course with each other. In these cases, a
huge personal bias creeps in, and, let us say,
the desires of a Bobby Fischer or of a Gary
Kasparov are believed to trump all else, and
this is where elitists lose their way.
To me, there is nothing so crystaline as the
example wherein a young Larry Evans -- friend
and trainer to BF -- pointed out the unfairness
of the so-called demands, being made of a
FIDE that was torn between different poles,
by the challenger-- a reversal of the normal
pattern. Most of the talking heads back then
allowed their own personal bias to overwhelm
all else, and this concept of elitism was at
the very root of the problem, right there with
bias and stupidity (i.e. Mr. Kalme's published
idiocy).
In one sense, the best thing that could
happen is for the USCF to fail-- to collapse,
to make way for something better. The very
structure of this organization seems to lead
inexorably to infighting, jealousies and now,
to never-ending lawsuits.
> Tell me this - since you are a stronger player than you pretend - given 4.5
> minutes with black with white needing to win, do you have something up your
> opening sleeve which might puzzle an Irina Krush for just a single game?
I have no idea how strong Ms. Krush may
be. Here in Indiana, I've played one 1800+
rated female, Vivian Schmucker; I won. In
fact, I also (barely) recall playing a young
girl over in Ohio-- a 1700ish player, and I
also won that game. And the wife of a local
2300-player entered one tourney I played in;
I beat her as well, but then her vengeful
husband took revenge in a later round!
The type of blitz game you describe has,
to my knowledge, never been adopted here.
Back in the days when I was good, we did
have some rated blitz tourneys and I did
quite well because none of the players
who might have squashed me showed up.
But I suppose the real point I should
make here is that I have never relied on
openings theory to gain an overwhelming
advantage as a crux for my results; just
the opposite. My opening play is often
criticized by the type of player who does
rely on such things. I am said to play
the wrong openings, inferior lines, and
(gasp!) even to lose a key tempo when
playing a reversed Benoni! Lucky for me,
these critics do not have the power to
arrest or to inflict more than ridicule and
scorn.
> She has an extra 1.5 minutes to solve it over the board. That is the level of
> gamble on this type of finish. When I played Dembo I played a black line in
> the Rossolimo sacking a pawn, and she hadn't see it before, but it had had a
> GM outing or two. The game went a respectable 35 moves. She is about same
> strength as Irina. The odds of me or you fluking a win seem drastically
> increased, and its really a shame for 2 2500-ish players have to behave like
> us on a caffeine-high, no? 'Cause what else is there going on. I remember
> Susan Polgar game commentary that there were lots of mistakes in that final
> game, long before the last minute.
I think there is an obvious lack of thought
in this area, when it becomes necessary
to break ties via blitz chess or the flipping
of coins. More intelligent folks -- let's say
the checkers tourney organizers -- could
probably solve this without much trouble.
We need to hire someone who can think,
who can reason, and the relatively simple
problem will be solved. "Chess makes you
dumb."
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 03 Sep 2008 09:06:07
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:75791092-e39e-4ddc-b7a4-e606045a7b4e@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> In 1999 Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik in unison, attempted to speak with
>> Fide
>
>
> Recall that when Dorothy attempted to speak
> with the Wizard, she was summarily told to, in
> essence, commit hari kiri by messing with the
> witch of the West.
I /do/ remember that, but not their ratings - do you have the game score?
> The solution is to send your
> little dog to pull back the curtain, thereby ex-
> posing the sham that is FIDE's CEO, CFO, and
> head honcho.
That's a bit of a stretch for a little dog - instead we are about to take a
very mneasured look at something closer to home, the notorious CJA, as
viewed by an insider.
>> > Now, my eyesight is not so great, and my
>> > internet connection may be herky-jerky at
>> > times, but the video I saw had one of the
>> > two players -- if not both -- obviously acting
>> > illegally (i.e. cheating), over and over again.
>>
>> Someone did something technically advanced to improve viewing - but what
>> happened as result is merely to confirm that both palyers erred. The
>> major
>> point is why deploy this type of finish when it is so fraught with
>> likelihood of being controversial?
>
>
> Perhaps the organizers were not clever
> enough to envision a superior method by
> which to avoid or break ties?
That is one possibility, but I think the organiser simply didn't want
co-champions, and the rest were merely awkward details.
>
>> <WW II snipped>
>
>
> Oh no you don't! Readers may recall that
> back in my day, we did not have the sort of
> Mickey Mouse wars of today, but /real/,
> meat-and-potatoes kinds of wars.
Studs Terkel wars. Good wars. Though in Europe it was usually mystery meat.
> As my
> great-granddaddy used to say: "remember
> Pearl Harbor!" More about this later.
Tora! Tora!
I do know a bit about this Pacific war - again from Hampton Sides' record of
Bataan, and from not my grand-father, but father, who spent 4 years in the
pacific. His memories were all about Bondai Beach and Bombs, about in equal
proportion.
>> See above - I would say that those 3 Ks would be hard to say no to. Of
>> course, if there is no survey, nor any interest in a survey, why should
>> officialdom conduct one? USCf don't even admit there is a problem. Of
>> course, they are understandably too busy to attend with the national
>> championship, and attend to their lawyers - and we know what is more
>> important.
>
>
> Don't forget about their main job-- infighting!
They would do far better outsourcing their infighting - for example, I could
negotiate with them that you and I do it, mostly in secret while smiling in
public for as little as $100k a year, which I would split 60/40 with you.
This would be as least as cheap as lawyers, and quicker.
>> Your friend Larry Parr says it was ever so. A class of burocrats
>> attending
>> only to their own administrative needs and personal status.
>
>
> I think Mr. Parr was side-tracked by a certain
> notion of elitism; his world-view was, like yours,
> that if a Bobby Fischer wanted something
> changed, by golly, it ought to be changed.
While you may be correct for Mr. Parr, who I take the liberty of not
defending here, given his propensity to evolve adequate compensatory
responses himself, I should still wish to point out that historically most
strong players were given the run-around if they got too close with their
precious opinions about their own game.
At least USCF has always been consistent in its philosophy; the game would
be far better off without any chess players in it. AFAIK, they have
successfully deployed their tactical forces within this strategy.
> As
> you say above, if three Big-Ks are in agreement,
> then FIDE should take note. But there are often
> times when the desires of the rich and famous
> sharply clash with fairness, with decency, or
> of course with each other.
Don't forget oil. That's as important in KaKa City as it is in DC!
> In these cases, a
> huge personal bias creeps in, and, let us say,
> the desires of a Bobby Fischer or of a Gary
> Kasparov are believed to trump all else, and
> this is where elitists lose their way.
How interesting then, for the not-close friends of Kasparov and Karpov, to
wish to jointly address what we now see being called 'degrading' and
'demeaning' chess practices.
The rules were either perfect before and never needed mending, nevermind
meddling so a few dozen professionals can earn a buck, or...
> To me, there is nothing so crystaline as the
> example wherein a young Larry Evans -- friend
> and trainer to BF -- pointed out the unfairness
> of the so-called demands, being made of a
> FIDE that was torn between different poles,
> by the challenger-- a reversal of the normal
> pattern. Most of the talking heads back then
> allowed their own personal bias to overwhelm
> all else, and this concept of elitism was at
> the very root of the problem, right there with
> bias and stupidity (i.e. Mr. Kalme's published
> idiocy).
Unfortunately, this is too limited a survey to make general agreement
about - except to note 3 things:
1) that Fischer may well have acted in a less than mature way, yet /because/
he was so singular and even isolated a case, it is easy to point out his
mistakes, and even lampoon him for his challenge [which the then Russian
Fide did not restrain themselves from doing]
2) Subsequently other players had to resolve their conflicts by the same
pretty-isolated means - both W Chs Polgar and Karpov sued Fide, Kasparov and
Short tried a break-away failing means of agreement with what had become in
effect a big chess business with franchises.
3) The emergence and burocratic potency of a Kalme is merely symptomatic of
the whole burocratic shebang - and I doubt his particular form of idiocy is
any degree greater than other Fide office perform 'for us'.
> In one sense, the best thing that could
> happen is for the USCF to fail-- to collapse,
> to make way for something better. The very
> structure of this organization seems to lead
> inexorably to infighting, jealousies and now,
> to never-ending lawsuits.
Again, your friend Mr. Parr did predict that means of resolution at the
beginning of the Goichberg-era as we know it.
The in-questions about reform or revolution have been going around the
circuit for a year or so. Naturally, this is resented in public by those who
see no problems at all which can't be fixed by a committee <grin > even
though no USCF committee has reformed anything to do with player's benefits
for 25 years.
Still, reform is a least a viable form of argument. On the other hand there
are those who have gone so far as to cost out a new organisation.
About 10 years ago I think these types of conversation did not revolve
around USCF at all - but they did around Fide. They became especially
intense when that communist activist began to report on matters in Kalmykia,
and was subsequently murdered ion an alley there. This put the damper on
/direct/ investigation for some time.
Public opinion became more terse then - less likely to give Fide the benefit
of the doubt. Fide has uncertainly regained any trust - and its erstwhile
challenger to chess administration, the ACP has seemed to moderate its
stance since it moved from Paris, and the Russian version seems to have the
more limited focus of maintaining GM's rights to the getting of chess-bucks.
Still, there are those who would reform Fide, but who have no sense of how
to go about that - or even if its possible. The last big attempt found
itself co-opted, and is now snuggly part of the system.
Only quite recently have serious conversations on the same themes emerged
surrounding USCF. Previously people admitted the need for a little or a lot
of reform. Most of that about too much superstructure not delivering its
worth in value.
There appear to be 4 areas that are necessary to address, either as
necessary reforms, or as foundations for a new entity:
1) Rules
2) Ratings
3) Communications
4) Education
We began this thread with rules, which are in such a disgraceful mess; rules
which seemingly careen about searching for the right basis, and with such
frequent and extensive changes that no wonder the poor players are confused.
Ratings need to be de-politicized, and the evidently corrupt rewards system
and floors need to go out the window, as something simpler, mathematical and
per-Elo [as I wrote yesterday] re-established.
While I don't like the unlikeable ChessLife any more than you do, even so,
something as your friend Mr. Parr has opined, needs to be put into the hands
of members on a regular basis. The net alone doesn't cut it. I think
resolving that issue before broader communications on chess are addressed
[things such as tv, or net-tv, or Moodle-based interactivity] is a necessary
means to maintain what small public attention remains to organizational
factors.
The much neglected topic of chess education is the longest term item which
can still have large effect on the chess public. The question must be
addressed why the majority of young players turn-over to such alarming
degree - is their something that would sustain their interest better than
what there is currently? Certainly an attentive exploration of mainstream
Big Ed is indicated. Other countries have done it, even recently.
Is USA not so advanced as Turkey, as India? When you spend vast amounts of
educational dollars on chess, and you like the result, then maybe you live
in a more virile and ambitious culture than America has become?
Anyway... the rest is silence - above is enough to keep a motivated squad of
chess-promoters going for 5 years, and to cover the bases.
I know not exactly, but better than most, the status of each item at USCF,
and also elsewhere! I also know that there is little communication between
USCF and anywhere.
In the end, it may be that those who do wish to progress chess will not act
against USCF as if a reaction to it, but instead ignore it entirely
preferring other means to promote the game.
That is the measure of conversation about reform : revolution.
I see you write some other interesting material below, but work beckons, and
I must to it.
Toodle-oo! Phil Innes
>
>
>> Tell me this - since you are a stronger player than you pretend - given
>> 4.5
>> minutes with black with white needing to win, do you have something up
>> your
>> opening sleeve which might puzzle an Irina Krush for just a single game?
>
>
> I have no idea how strong Ms. Krush may
> be. Here in Indiana, I've played one 1800+
> rated female, Vivian Schmucker; I won. In
> fact, I also (barely) recall playing a young
> girl over in Ohio-- a 1700ish player, and I
> also won that game. And the wife of a local
> 2300-player entered one tourney I played in;
> I beat her as well, but then her vengeful
> husband took revenge in a later round!
>
> The type of blitz game you describe has,
> to my knowledge, never been adopted here.
> Back in the days when I was good, we did
> have some rated blitz tourneys and I did
> quite well because none of the players
> who might have squashed me showed up.
>
> But I suppose the real point I should
> make here is that I have never relied on
> openings theory to gain an overwhelming
> advantage as a crux for my results; just
> the opposite. My opening play is often
> criticized by the type of player who does
> rely on such things. I am said to play
> the wrong openings, inferior lines, and
> (gasp!) even to lose a key tempo when
> playing a reversed Benoni! Lucky for me,
> these critics do not have the power to
> arrest or to inflict more than ridicule and
> scorn.
>
>
>> She has an extra 1.5 minutes to solve it over the board. That is the
>> level of
>> gamble on this type of finish. When I played Dembo I played a black line
>> in
>> the Rossolimo sacking a pawn, and she hadn't see it before, but it had
>> had a
>> GM outing or two. The game went a respectable 35 moves. She is about same
>> strength as Irina. The odds of me or you fluking a win seem drastically
>> increased, and its really a shame for 2 2500-ish players have to behave
>> like
>> us on a caffeine-high, no? 'Cause what else is there going on. I remember
>> Susan Polgar game commentary that there were lots of mistakes in that
>> final
>> game, long before the last minute.
>
>
> I think there is an obvious lack of thought
> in this area, when it becomes necessary
> to break ties via blitz chess or the flipping
> of coins. More intelligent folks -- let's say
> the checkers tourney organizers -- could
> probably solve this without much trouble.
> We need to hire someone who can think,
> who can reason, and the relatively simple
> problem will be solved. "Chess makes you
> dumb."
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 06:06:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
Chess One wrote:
> The question remains: Who adopted the FIDE rules into the US chess
> championship, and do officials think that players might be allowed to
> influence their own game - since players at home and abroad have roundly
> condemned this sort of play-off?
Who cares about the players? The game
clearly is the property of chess tournament
organizers; players merely take up space
and are in general an unnecessary nuisance,
easily dispensed with. Down with players;
up with organizers.
> The current Monkey Play-by-Play video shows the eventual winner making 3
> moves in 1 second to win by 1 second. Those are not the only 'infractions'
> but that is almost impossible to do. Can the other player actually have
> released the piece? If not then its not a matter of pressing the clock but
> of touch-move rule. What if a player did not release a piece while the other
> player touched their piece, is the second player still obliged to move it?
> The inanity of these blitz rules make monkey-business of most chess rules.
Now, my eyesight is not so great, and my
internet connection may be herky-jerky at
times, but the video I saw had one of the
two players -- if not both -- obviously acting
illegally (i.e. cheating), over and over again.
That is not how a championship of chess
should be conducted, but it may suffice if
the contest is which player is the superior
cheater.
> The point of all is that this style of game resolution invites controversy,
> and if Irina Krush had complained at every opportunity the clock would have
> been stopped more often than at a game of American football. Is that what we
> want?
Yes! Give us American football (often
confused with soccer), with steroids and
over-eaters and head-bashing excitement.
Of course, this is merely a /symbolic/
substitute for neo-Nazi territory-gaining
political policies, such as can be seen
with our current administration's feeble
attempt to best Napolean, Hitler and so
forth. Hearken back to Alexander the
Great, to Julius Caesar, to the Beatles
and to Elvis-- all successful world-
conquerors of note.
> Whose game is it? Should TDs actually respect what players want for rules,
> especially to avoid demeaning the game?
It is curious how the now old-fashioned
term "dumbing down" has been so easily
replaced by "demeaning". (My guess is
that Dr. IMnes fears some copyright in-
fringement lawsuit by a head ratpacker,
were he to co-opt the other term.)
> After all, its the players who have
> to perform - why should the game be
> degraded by officials, and player's
> wishes ignored?
First, you need to take a comprehensive
survey of the players you wish to represent.
Next, show us the results of your survey,
and /only then/ proceed to argue that such
players' wishes are in fact being "ignored".
Remember the law of unintended con-
sequences. You may discover that, for
instance, most players don't want such a
tourney where female chess players are
segregated from their inferiors. Or you
might be surprised to learn that a huge
influx of younger players have supplanted
the old, and that these newer types
actually love shallow blitz-chess, while
despising dull, slow plodding chess, as
well as beans-and-cornbread, black and
white TV, and Studebakers. The thing is,
you'll never know until you actually do the
survey.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 02 Sep 2008 09:34:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Monkey Play, 2009 version?
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:efe88ef0-8113-4036-bf42-9bcf054cbd0a@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> The question remains: Who adopted the FIDE rules into the US chess
>> championship, and do officials think that players might be allowed to
>> influence their own game - since players at home and abroad have roundly
>> condemned this sort of play-off?
>
>
> Who cares about the players? The game
> clearly is the property of chess tournament
> organizers; players merely take up space
> and are in general an unnecessary nuisance,
> easily dispensed with. Down with players;
> up with organizers.
In 1999 Kasparov, Karpov and Kramnik in unison, attempted to speak with Fide
about what they feared was diminishing the game. The USCF adopted rules are
Fide rules. Somehow players can't get a word in. The only player of note I
see writing about this subject is Joel Benjamin - and he dismisses what
people think, with no apparent irony since he himself didn't attend this
year's championship because whatever was going on in it didn't provide
enough prize money.
To his credit, Benjamin didn't discuss if this was good or bad chess, he
discussed where people were posting their opinions ;(
If he didn't have a column of his own he would have been just like we, the
players.
>
>> The current Monkey Play-by-Play video shows the eventual winner making 3
>> moves in 1 second to win by 1 second. Those are not the only
>> 'infractions'
>> but that is almost impossible to do. Can the other player actually have
>> released the piece? If not then its not a matter of pressing the clock
>> but
>> of touch-move rule. What if a player did not release a piece while the
>> other
>> player touched their piece, is the second player still obliged to move
>> it?
>> The inanity of these blitz rules make monkey-business of most chess
>> rules.
>
>
> Now, my eyesight is not so great, and my
> internet connection may be herky-jerky at
> times, but the video I saw had one of the
> two players -- if not both -- obviously acting
> illegally (i.e. cheating), over and over again.
Someone did something technically advanced to improve viewing - but what
happened as result is merely to confirm that both palyers erred. The major
point is why deploy this type of finish when it is so fraught with
likelihood of being controversial?
> That is not how a championship of chess
> should be conducted, but it may suffice if
> the contest is which player is the superior
> cheater.
<WW II snipped >
>> Whose game is it? Should TDs actually respect what players want for
>> rules,
>> especially to avoid demeaning the game?
>
>
> It is curious how the now old-fashioned
> term "dumbing down" has been so easily
> replaced by "demeaning". (My guess is
> that Dr. IMnes fears some copyright in-
> fringement lawsuit by a head ratpacker,
> were he to co-opt the other term.)
A Dutch TD wrote 'demeaning' at Chessbase. a German player wrote
'degrading'.
>> After all, its the players who have
>> to perform - why should the game be
>> degraded by officials, and player's
>> wishes ignored?
>
>
> First, you need to take a comprehensive
> survey of the players you wish to represent.
> Next, show us the results of your survey,
> and /only then/ proceed to argue that such
> players' wishes are in fact being "ignored".
See above - I would say that those 3 Ks would be hard to say no to. Of
course, if there is no survey, nor any interest in a survey, why should
officialdom conduct one? USCf don't even admit there is a problem. Of
course, they are understandably too busy to attend with the national
championship, and attend to their lawyers - and we know what is more
important.
Your friend Larry Parr says it was ever so. A class of burocrats attending
only to their own administrative needs and personal status.
> Remember the law of unintended con-
> sequences. You may discover that, for
> instance, most players don't want such a
> tourney where female chess players are
> segregated from their inferiors. Or you
> might be surprised to learn that a huge
> influx of younger players have supplanted
> the old, and that these newer types
> actually love shallow blitz-chess, while
> despising dull, slow plodding chess, as
> well as beans-and-cornbread, black and
> white TV, and Studebakers. The thing is,
> you'll never know until you actually do the
> survey.
>
Tell me this - since you are a stronger player than you pretend - given 4.5
minutes with black with white needing to win, do you have something up your
opening sleeve which might puzzle an Irina Krush for just a single game? She
has an extra 1.5 minutes to solve it over the board. That is the level of
gamble on this type of finish. When I played Dembo I played a black line in
the Rossolimo sacking a pawn, and she hadn't see it before, but it had had a
GM outing or two. The game went a respectable 35 moves. She is about same
strength as Irina. The odds of me or you fluking a win seem drastically
increased, and its really a shame for 2 2500-ish players have to behave like
us on a caffeine-high, no? 'Cause what else is there going on. I remember
Susan Polgar game commentary that there were lots of mistakes in that final
game, long before the last minute.
If nothing happens, things will stay the same.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
|
