| |
Main
Date: 31 Jul 2008 13:41:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
discussion group at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1362&start=3D=
30
Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
Olympiad.
In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
beginners".
For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
states:
"During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) in FIDE-
rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) are
counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF=92s Quick Chess rating
system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Aug 2008 06:02:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Aug 1, 6:28 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Personally, I think the young, improving
> players will make their own way by
> simply taking rating points away from the
> elderly players (who no longer get
> feedback points). The "elderly" trained
> with books and against other weak
> humans, while the new generation are
> training with ChessBase, Fritz and their
> Pentium Quad-Core computers; with an
> edge like that, they don't need no stinkin'
> help, man!
>
> -- cool bot
The young players cannot take rating points away from elderly players
who never play.
That is Polgar's ace-in-the-hole. She has not played in years but
still brags about how she is so much stronger than the others.
By the way, why has Rob ("the Robber") never "challenged" her to a
game?
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2008 15:28:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Aug 1, 4:58=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > The point is that we do better when we send younger players, than when
> > we send elderly players like Polgar.
Funny.
> Her last round game against the New York Times Reporter was hard
> fought and was one of the last games in the tournament to finish.
> Polgar needed to win to secure one of the top prizes for her team. It
> was a rook and pawn endgame. Some observers thought she could win but
> I felt certain that it was a draw and it turned out that I was right.
"Could win" and actually winning are two
different things. (How about a link to the
position you are discussing?)
> Her average Opponent excluding the players rated 1500 and 1619 was
> 2073.
>
> Performance rating for this tournament was 2173.
>
> Polgar lost 17 rating points in this tournament, with her rating
> dropping from 2574 to 2557.
> Her result in this tournament must be one of the worst results ever in
> history for a grandmaster and her game against Ruberto Jose must be
> the worst game ever played by a grandmaster.
Statements like that one reveal exactly why
Mr. Sloan is widely regarded as *a kook*.
> Polgar is now 39 years old, an age when most players start losing
> their sharpness. She needs to start proving that she can still play
> top level chess rather than constantly talking about her great results
> years ago.
If this is a reference to the SP Web site, I
believe she brags there about the
accomplishments of all three Polgar sisters,
plus Vera Menchik and several others, as if
they all were /her/ accomplishments. Even
her toad-eaters admit this, calling it mere
hyperbole, instead of fabrications and lies.
> If she no longer wishes to play, she should step aside and make room
> for younger improving players.
Well, if you want to order Ms.Polgar
around like this, why not join the Army
and then get her to sign up at the same
time? Surely, they must have a
division of some kind for elderly folks
who want to be boot-camp sergeants.
Personally, I think the young, improving
players will make their own way by
simply taking rating points away from the
elderly players (who no longer get
feedback points). The "elderly" trained
with books and against other weak
humans, while the new generation are
training with ChessBase, Fritz and their
Pentium Quad-Core computers; with an
edge like that, they don't need no stinkin'
help, man!
-- cool bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2008 13:58:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Aug 1, 11:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On her website, Polgar also complains about another rule, but she does
> not explain the reason for the rule:
>
> The point is that we do better when we send younger players, than when
> we send elderly players like Polgar.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> ---
> As was illustrated by the Olympiad, where the 'elderly' Polgar led USA to
> its highest place finish ever, the Silver medal.
Susan Polgar had a great result in the 2004 World Chess Olympiad, no
doubt about it. Not only did she wipe out the opposition but she
played all 14 games without a break. She was the iron-man of the
Olympiad. Nobody else accomplished this.
I was very proud of her, since I had been her biggest supporter up
until that time.
However, look at what she did in her next tournament, which was the
last open tournament in which she has ever played, the 2005 US Amateur
Team East
Round Opponent Rating Result
1 Roberto Jose 1796 L
2 David Jacobi 1500 W
3 Adithya Sundar 1619 W
4 Shirley Ben-Dan 1976 W
5 John Leo Vehre Jr. 2229 W
6 Dylan Mc Clain 2290 D
Her last round game against the New York Times Reporter was hard
fought and was one of the last games in the tournament to finish.
Polgar needed to win to secure one of the top prizes for her team. It
was a rook and pawn endgame. Some observers thought she could win but
I felt certain that it was a draw and it turned out that I was right.
Her average Opponent excluding the players rated 1500 and 1619 was
2073.
Performance rating for this tournament was 2173.
Polgar lost 17 rating points in this tournament, with her rating
dropping from 2574 to 2557.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
Roberto Jose (1796) - GM Susan Polgar (2561)
USATE 2005, TL 40/2 SD/1, Feb. 19, 2005,ECO A87
Dutch Defense =96 Leningrad System 5)Nf3
1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.0=960 0=960 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8
8.Re1 Qf7 9.Qb3 h6 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Nxd2 12.Rxd2 e5 13.dxe5
dxe5 14.Red1 Nc6 15.Nd5 e4 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Qb4 Re8 18.Nc2 c6
19.Nde3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bxc4 21.b3 Ba6 22.Qa5 Re7 23.Bh3 Rd7 24.Ndc2
Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bf6 26.Nd4 Kh8 27.Ng2 Rd8 28.Nf4 Rd7 29.Kf1 h5
30.Nfe6 Ng4?! 31.Bxg4 hxg4 32.Qc5 b6? 33.Qxc6 Bb7 34.Qa4! Qh7?
35.Kg1 e3 36.fxe3 Qh3?? 37.Nf4 Qh7 38.Nxg6+ Kg8 39.Nxf5 1=960
Her result in this tournament must be one of the worst results ever in
history for a grandmaster and her game against Ruberto Jose must be
the worst game ever played by a grandmaster. True, every grandmaster
makes horrific one-move blunders now and then, but in this game Polgar
made a whole series of bad moves.
Polgar is now 39 years old, an age when most players start losing
their sharpness. She needs to start proving that she can still play
top level chess rather than constantly talking about her great results
years ago.
If she no longer wishes to play, she should step aside and make room
for younger improving players.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Aug 2008 05:54:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On her website, Polgar also complains about another rule, but she does
not explain the reason for the rule:
After invitational ratings have been calculated for the highest rated
players for all but one spot on the team, the following method shall
be used to determine the final spot: Average of the 1) current
published USCF rating at time of invitation; 2) current published FIDE
rating at time of invitation. To this number shall be added the
following adjustment points based on the player=92s age as of January 1
of the Olympiad year: 5 points for age 25, 10 points age 24, 15 points
age 23, 20 points age 22, 25 points age 21, 30 points age 20, 35
points age 19, 40 points age 18, 50 points age 17, 60 points age 16 or
below.
"This is absurd. It is blatantly unfriendly against players 25 and
older.", writes Polgar.
The reason for the rule is that in 2004 Hikaru Nakamura was rapidly
improving. He gained 118 rating points that year and won the US
Championship. He was 16 years old.
However, because of the USCF Rule about averaging in a player's old
FIDE rating and old USCF Rating, Nakamura's average rating was too
low. Instead, players like Gulko who had not played at all for a long
time had a higher average rating and therefor was sent.
As a result, Nakamura did not make the team and did not get to play in
the World Chess Olympiad in 2004, even though he was the highest rated
player in the US by the time that the Olympiad was played.
Also, the US has had poor results with older players. At the 2000
World Chess Olympiad in Istanbul the youngest player on the US team
was 41. Our team finished 21st, one of our worse results ever.
The point is that we do better when we send younger players, than when
we send elderly players like Polgar.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Aug 2008 11:20:54
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On her website, Polgar also complains about another rule, but she does
not explain the reason for the rule:
The point is that we do better when we send younger players, than when
we send elderly players like Polgar.
Sam Sloan
---
As was illustrated by the Olympiad, where the 'elderly' Polgar led USA to
its highest place finish ever, the Silver medal.
The point is that to accommodate an exception, a singular instance, there is
now formal adjustment for all other players, which prejudices experience -
and mucks with the rating system, so that you don't have to prove your place
by your rating, you get the benefit of the doubt because you are young.
Chess Politicians love this stuff, because they can mess with the only thing
they have left to mess with, other than the rules - skewing the ratings into
an even greater tangle so that, the USCF system for example, can no longer
be calculated without use of a computer.
For very obscure reasons the Canadian Federation are speculating on changing
their system to one like USCF, and away from the British system which you
can immediately calculate in your head.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 16:22:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Jul 31, 5:12 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
> >>> discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.ph=
p?f=3D4&t=3D1362&start=3D30
> >>> Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
> >>> what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
> >>> Olympiad.
> >>> In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
> >>> games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
> >>> play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
> >>> chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
> >>> Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
> >>> beginners".
> >>> For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
> >>> Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify sinc=
e
> >>> then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
> >>> current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
> >>> states:
> >>> "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
> >>> rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponent=
s
> >>> rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) in FID=
E-
> >>> rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
> >>> For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
> >>> rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) ar=
e
> >>> counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF=92s Quick Chess rating
> >>> system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
> >> The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
> >> for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
> >> player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
> >> about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
> >> impressive.
>
> >> Jerry Spinrad
>
> > I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
> > in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
> > against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
> > games a year.
>
> > So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
> > she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
> > tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
>
> > I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
> > Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
> > rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
> > Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
> > of rating points.
>
> >http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
>
> > Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
> > three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
> > It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
> > "Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
> > against each other.
>
> > Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
> > played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
> > rarely played a game against a master.
>
> > Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
> > wants to play, is a mystery.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> For the curious...
>
> Roberto Jose (1796)
> GM Susan Polgar (2561)
> USATE 2005, TL 40/2 SD/1, Feb. 19, 2005,ECO A87
> Dutch Defense =96 Leningrad System 5)Nf3
>
> 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.0=960 0=960 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8
> 8.Re1 Qf7 9.Qb3 h6 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Nxd2 12.Rxd2 e5 13.dxe5
> dxe5 14.Red1 Nc6 15.Nd5 e4 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Qb4 Re8 18.Nc2 c6
> 19.Nde3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bxc4 21.b3 Ba6 22.Qa5 Re7 23.Bh3 Rd7 24.Ndc2
> Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bf6 26.Nd4 Kh8 27.Ng2 Rd8 28.Nf4 Rd7 29.Kf1 h5
> 30.Nfe6 Ng4?! 31.Bxg4 hxg4 32.Qc5 b6? 33.Qxc6 Bb7 34.Qa4! Qh7?
> 35.Kg1 e3 36.fxe3 Qh3?? 37.Nf4 Qh7 38.Nxg6+ Kg8 39.Nxf5 1=960
>
> [http://njoychess.com/ACN/2005%20A.pdf]
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
Thank you. The Roberto Jose- Susan Polgar is on page 16.
Polgar as black played extremely aggressively, apparently figuring
that since her opponent was a Class-B player he would collapse. Then,
she played an incredible series of bad moves. She lost on time but it
was just as well as she was getting mated on the back rank in a few
more moves.
I think she missed a win. There could have been a cute mate after
30. ... Nf3 31. Rd1 Qxe6 32. Nxe6 Rd1+ 33. Kg2 Rg1# checkmate.
Of course, White would probably not have played 31. Rd1 but I think
Black would have had a winning position anyway.
This extremely bad game certainly explains why Susan Polgar has never
played in an open Swiss tournament since then.
Perhaps after a few warm-up tournaments she would be readily to play
in serious competition again.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Aug 2008 01:51:33
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 31, 5:12 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
>>>>> discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=30
>>>>> Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
>>>>> what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
>>>>> Olympiad.
>>>>> In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
>>>>> games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
>>>>> play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
>>>>> chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
>>>>> Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
>>>>> beginners".
>>>>> For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
>>>>> Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
>>>>> then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
>>>>> current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
>>>>> states:
>>>>> "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
>>>>> rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
>>>>> rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) in FIDE-
>>>>> rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
>>>>> For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
>>>>> rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) are
>>>>> counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF�s Quick Chess rating
>>>>> system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
>>>> The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
>>>> for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
>>>> player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
>>>> about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
>>>> impressive.
>>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>> I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
>>> in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
>>> against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
>>> games a year.
>>> So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
>>> she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
>>> tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
>>> I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
>>> Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
>>> rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
>>> Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
>>> of rating points.
>>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
>>> Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
>>> three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
>>> It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
>>> "Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
>>> against each other.
>>> Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
>>> played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
>>> rarely played a game against a master.
>>> Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
>>> wants to play, is a mystery.
>>> Sam Sloan
>> For the curious...
>>
>> Roberto Jose (1796)
>> GM Susan Polgar (2561)
>> USATE 2005, TL 40/2 SD/1, Feb. 19, 2005,ECO A87
>> Dutch Defense � Leningrad System 5)Nf3
>>
>> 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.0�0 0�0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8
>> 8.Re1 Qf7 9.Qb3 h6 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Nxd2 12.Rxd2 e5 13.dxe5
>> dxe5 14.Red1 Nc6 15.Nd5 e4 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Qb4 Re8 18.Nc2 c6
>> 19.Nde3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bxc4 21.b3 Ba6 22.Qa5 Re7 23.Bh3 Rd7 24.Ndc2
>> Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bf6 26.Nd4 Kh8 27.Ng2 Rd8 28.Nf4 Rd7 29.Kf1 h5
>> 30.Nfe6 Ng4?! 31.Bxg4 hxg4 32.Qc5 b6? 33.Qxc6 Bb7 34.Qa4! Qh7?
>> 35.Kg1 e3 36.fxe3 Qh3?? 37.Nf4 Qh7 38.Nxg6+ Kg8 39.Nxf5 1�0
>>
>> [http://njoychess.com/ACN/2005%20A.pdf]
>> --
>>
>> "Do that which is right..."
>>
>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> Thank you. The Roberto Jose- Susan Polgar is on page 16.
>
> Polgar as black played extremely aggressively, apparently figuring
> that since her opponent was a Class-B player he would collapse. Then,
> she played an incredible series of bad moves. She lost on time but it
> was just as well as she was getting mated on the back rank in a few
> more moves.
>
> I think she missed a win. There could have been a cute mate after
> 30. ... Nf3 31. Rd1 Qxe6 32. Nxe6 Rd1+ 33. Kg2 Rg1# checkmate.
>
> Of course, White would probably not have played 31. Rd1 but I think
> Black would have had a winning position anyway.
>
> This extremely bad game certainly explains why Susan Polgar has never
> played in an open Swiss tournament since then.
>
> Perhaps after a few warm-up tournaments she would be readily to play
> in serious competition again.
>
> Sam Sloan
Here's a quick Fritz X analysis:
[Event "120'+15"/40+60'/20+30'"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.07.31"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Jose, Roberto"]
[Black "Polgar, Susan"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A87"]
[WhiteElo "1796"]
[BlackElo "2561"]
[Annotator "Fritz 10 (4s)"]
[PlyCount "77"]
{A87: Dutch Defence: Leningrad System: 5 Nf3} 1. Nf3 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2
g6 4.
d4 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. c4 d6 7. Nc3 Qe8 8. Re1 Qf7 {last book move} 9. Qb3
h6 {
Controls g5} 10. Bd2 Ne4 11. Rad1 (11. Be3 c6 $11) 11... Nxd2 12. Rxd2 (12.
Nxd2 c6 13. d5 f4 $11) 12... e5 $15 13. dxe5 dxe5 14. Red1 Nc6 15. Nd5 e4 {
Black gets more space} 16. Ne1 Ne5 17. Qb4 (17. f4 exf3 18. exf3 c6 $15)
17...
Re8 18. Nc2 (18. Qa4 $5 Be6 19. b3 $17) 18... c6 $17 19. Nde3 Be6 (19...
g5 20.
g4 Bf8 21. Qc3 $19) 20. Nd4 (20. b3 $142 $5 $15 {is worth
consideration}) 20...
Bxc4 $19 21. b3 Ba6 22. Qa5 (22. Ndc2 Rf8 $19) 22... Re7 (22... Rf8 23.
Rc2 $19
) 23. Bh3 (23. h3 Rf8 24. Qb4 Ree8 $19) 23... Rd7 24. Ndc2 Rxd2 25. Rxd2
(25.
Qxd2 b6 $19) 25... Bf6 (25... Rf8 26. Nd4 $19) 26. Nd4 Kh8 27. Ng2 Rd8
28. Nf4
(28. Nc2 Rxd2 29. Qxd2 Bg7 $19) 28... Rd7 (28... Bxe2 {
keeps an even firmer grip} 29. Nfxe2 b6 30. Qa4 $19) 29. Kf1 $6 {
puts up no strong fight} (29. Bg2 g5 30. Nxf5 gxf4 31. gxf4 Qh5 32. Rxd7
Nxd7
33. Bxe4 Qxe2 $19 (33... Bxe2 $6 34. Qxa7 Qg4+ 35. Ng3 $17)) 29... h5
(29... g5
$142 {might be the shorter path} 30. Nfe6 Nf3 31. Nxf3 exf3 32. Bxf5
fxe2+ 33.
Ke1 $19) 30. Nfe6 $2 (30. Kg1 Bxe2 $1 {Deflection: e2} 31. Nfxe2 b6 $19)
30...
Ng4 (30... Nf3 $142 $1 {makes it even easier for Black} 31. Nxf3 exf3
32. Nf4
$19) 31. Bxg4 $6 {instead of fighting back} (31. Qc5 Nxf2 $1 {
Double attack: c5/f2} 32. Kxf2 Rd5 33. Qxa7 Bxd4+ 34. Nxd4 c5 $17) 31...
hxg4 (
{Instead of} 31... fxg4 32. Qc3 c5 33. Qxc5 $19) 32. Qc5 b6 (32... Qe7
$142 $5
33. Qxa7 Kg8 $19) 33. Qxc6 $17 Bb7 34. Qa4 Qh7 $4 {
Black threatens to win material: Qh7xh2. a transit from better to worse}
(34...
Re7 $142 $19 {would have given Black the upper hand}) 35. Kg1 $11 e3 36.
fxe3
Qh3 $4 {throws away a nice position} (36... b5 $142 {the only rescuing move}
37. Qxa7 Qxh2+ 38. Kxh2 Rh7+ 39. Kg1 Rh1+ 40. Kf2 Rh2+ 41. Kg1 Rh1+ 42. Kf2
Rh2+ 43. Kf1 Rh1+ 44. Kf2 $11) 37. Nf4 $18 Qh7 38. Nxg6+ $1 {Deflection: g6}
Kg8 (38... Qxg6 39. Qxd7 {Deflection} (39. Qxd7 {Overloading})) 39. Nxf5
(39.
Nxf5 Qxg6 40. Qxd7 $18) 1-0
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 15:28:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> You are again ignoring the "Mayor's Cup," which was rated under the
> regular rating system whether you like it or not. (I don't, but that's
> another argument.) You are also overlooking the the 2004 Olympiad,
> which _you_ claimed should be USCF rated. Multiple-choice question,
> Sam: Are you a) disingenuous, b) stupid, of c) all of the above?
I see your point. The NY Mayor's Cup is a dual rated system. As a
tournament with a 30 minutes sudden time control, it is simultaneously
rated under both systems.
However, as I recall, back in 2006 when the rule Polgar complains
about was passed it was not dual rated. However, I am not sure. I am
sure that the rule was changed about this.
The 2004 World Chess Olympiad was not USCF rated. However, you are
correct that during my one year on the board I repeatedly made motions
that it be rated. Unfortunately, I could not get enough votes from the
other board members.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 15:15:09
From:
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
> > > discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.ph=
p?f=3D4&t=3D1362&start=3D30
> >
> > > Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
> > > what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
> > > Olympiad.
> >
> > > In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
> > > games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
> > > play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
> > > chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
> > > Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
> > > beginners".
> >
> > > For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
> > > Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify sinc=
e
> > > then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
> > > current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
> > > states:
> >
> > > "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
> > > rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponent=
s
> > > rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women=EF=BF=BDs Olympiad) =
in FIDE-
> > > rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
> > > For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
> > > rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women=EF=BF=BDs Olympi=
ad) are
> > > counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF=EF=BF=BDs Quick Chess rat=
ing
> > > system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
> >
> > The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
> > for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
> > player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
> > about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
> > impressive.
> >
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
> in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
> against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
> games a year.
>
> So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
> she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
> tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
>
> I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
> Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
> rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
> Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
> of rating points.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
>
> Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
> three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
> It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
> "Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
> against each other.
>
> Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
> played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
> rarely played a game against a master.
>
> Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
> wants to play, is a mystery.
>
> Sam Sloan
You are again ignoring the "Mayor's Cup," which was rated under the
regular rating system whether you like it or not. (I don't, but that's
another argument.) You are also overlooking the the 2004 Olympiad,
which _you_ claimed should be USCF rated. Multiple-choice question,
Sam: Are you a) disingenuous, b) stupid, of c) all of the above?
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 14:40:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
> > discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?=
f=3D4&t=3D1362&start=3D30
>
> > Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
> > what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
> > Olympiad.
>
> > In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
> > games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
> > play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
> > chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
> > Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
> > beginners".
>
> > For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
> > Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
> > then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
> > current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
> > states:
>
> > "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
> > rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
> > rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) in FIDE-
> > rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
> > For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
> > rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) are
> > counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF=92s Quick Chess rating
> > system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
>
> The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
> for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
> player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
> about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
> impressive.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
games a year.
So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
of rating points.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
"Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
against each other.
Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
rarely played a game against a master.
Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
wants to play, is a mystery.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 15:12:28
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
>>> discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=30
>>> Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
>>> what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
>>> Olympiad.
>>> In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
>>> games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
>>> play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
>>> chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
>>> Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
>>> beginners".
>>> For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
>>> Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
>>> then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
>>> current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
>>> states:
>>> "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
>>> rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
>>> rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) in FIDE-
>>> rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
>>> For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
>>> rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) are
>>> counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF�s Quick Chess rating
>>> system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
>> The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
>> for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
>> player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
>> about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
>> impressive.
>>
>> Jerry Spinrad
>
> I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
> in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
> against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
> games a year.
>
> So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
> she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
> tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
>
> I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
> Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
> rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
> Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
> of rating points.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
>
> Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
> three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
> It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
> "Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
> against each other.
>
> Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
> played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
> rarely played a game against a master.
>
> Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
> wants to play, is a mystery.
>
> Sam Sloan
For the curious...
Roberto Jose (1796)
GM Susan Polgar (2561)
USATE 2005, TL 40/2 SD/1, Feb. 19, 2005,ECO A87
Dutch Defense � Leningrad System 5)Nf3
1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.0�0 0�0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8
8.Re1 Qf7 9.Qb3 h6 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Nxd2 12.Rxd2 e5 13.dxe5
dxe5 14.Red1 Nc6 15.Nd5 e4 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Qb4 Re8 18.Nc2 c6
19.Nde3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bxc4 21.b3 Ba6 22.Qa5 Re7 23.Bh3 Rd7 24.Ndc2
Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bf6 26.Nd4 Kh8 27.Ng2 Rd8 28.Nf4 Rd7 29.Kf1 h5
30.Nfe6 Ng4?! 31.Bxg4 hxg4 32.Qc5 b6? 33.Qxc6 Bb7 34.Qa4! Qh7?
35.Kg1 e3 36.fxe3 Qh3?? 37.Nf4 Qh7 38.Nxg6+ Kg8 39.Nxf5 1�0
[ http://njoychess.com/ACN/2005%20A.pdf ]
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 22:49:03
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
TJ.D. Walker wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 4:04 pm, "[email protected]"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 3:41 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
>>>> discussion group
>>>> athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=30
>>>>
>>>> Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
>>>> what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
>>>> Olympiad.
>>>> In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
>>>> games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
>>>> play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
>>>> chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
>>>> Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
>>>> beginners".
>>>> For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
>>>> Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
>>>> then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
>>>> current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
>>>> states:
>>>> "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
>>>> rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
>>>> rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) in FIDE-
>>>> rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
>>>> For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
>>>> rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) are
>>>> counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF�s Quick Chess rating
>>>> system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
>>> The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
>>> for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
>>> player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
>>> about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
>>> impressive.
>>>
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>
>> I agree that the rule is severe and basically forces a player to play
>> in Goichberg tournaments, because where else can you get 30 games
>> against players rated over 2200? Most grandmasters do not play 30
>> games a year.
>>
>> So, the complaint by Susan has some validity, but in her case where
>> she has played NO games against any masters at all at regular
>> tournament speed in the last three years, she does not have a case.
>>
>> I just checked: The last time Susan played a master was in the 2005 US
>> Amateur Team East. It was in that tournament that she lost to a player
>> rated 1796. She played two masters but most of her opponents were
>> Class-B players. Her score of only 4.5 - 1.5 caused her to lose a lot
>> of rating points.
>>
>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200502213881-12452240
>>
>> Before that, in the 2004 Oklahoma Dream Team Challenge she played
>> three masters. This was an exhibition event, not a normal tournament.
>> It was arranged by Jim and Frank Berry so that members of the Polgar
>> "Dream Team" could play against local Oklahoma players, but not
>> against each other.
>>
>> Other than those total of five games in those two events, Polgar has
>> played no games against masters since 1995 and even before 1995 she
>> rarely played a game against a master.
>>
>> Why she would even want to play in Beijing, assuming that she really
>> wants to play, is a mystery.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> For the curious...
>
> Roberto Jose (1796)
> GM Susan Polgar (2561)
> USATE 2005, TL 40/2 SD/1, Feb. 19, 2005,ECO A87
> Dutch Defense � Leningrad System 5)Nf3
>
> 1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Bg7 5.0�0 0�0 6.c4 d6 7.Nc3 Qe8
> 8.Re1 Qf7 9.Qb3 h6 10.Bd2 Ne4 11.Rad1 Nxd2 12.Rxd2 e5 13.dxe5
> dxe5 14.Red1 Nc6 15.Nd5 e4 16.Ne1 Ne5 17.Qb4 Re8 18.Nc2 c6
> 19.Nde3 Be6 20.Nd4 Bxc4 21.b3 Ba6 22.Qa5 Re7 23.Bh3 Rd7 24.Ndc2
> Rxd2 25.Rxd2 Bf6 26.Nd4 Kh8 27.Ng2 Rd8 28.Nf4 Rd7 29.Kf1 h5
> 30.Nfe6 Ng4?! 31.Bxg4 hxg4 32.Qc5 b6? 33.Qxc6 Bb7 34.Qa4! Qh7?
> 35.Kg1 e3 36.fxe3 Qh3?? 37.Nf4 Qh7 38.Nxg6+ Kg8 39.Nxf5 1�0
>
> [ http://njoychess.com/ACN/2005%20A.pdf ]
Thanks JD.
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 17:34:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:39b47ba8-9495-417e-aa92-2d128b246f6a@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
discussion group at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1362&start=30
Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
Olympiad.
In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
beginners".
For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
states:
"During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) in FIDE-
rated or USCF Grand Prix events.
**And how many current participants have done that? [hint, I. Krush] and
Anna Z /will/ do that in Germany, though she ain't in the team. Instead we
understand that a 1460 blitz-rated player will represent USCF, who may never
have played even 1 game against a master player.
Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women�s Olympiad) are
counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF�s Quick Chess rating
system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
**Therefore, if this is the standard, who actually is currently eligible?
The way Sam Sloan writes is to exclude Susan Polgar alone, whereas, does the
current rule not exclude 5 or 6 players?
**Sam Sloan calls this an 'anti-Polgar' rule, and he is right, but as usual
does not mention the 1466 player who USCF chose instead who maybe /did/ play
30 games against masters in the past 12 months, [but likely?] and LOST them
all. This is the idiocy of what he represents as his and USCF's alternative
to selecting a 2600+ player.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 31 Jul 2008 14:04:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar Complains About Anti-Polgar Rule
|
On Jul 31, 3:41=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> There is a discussion well worth reading over on Susan Polgar's chess
> discussion group athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=
=3D4&t=3D1362&start=3D30
>
> Polgar complains about a rule specifically passed to stop a repeat of
> what Susan Polgar did to qualify for the 2004 Woman's World Chess
> Olympiad.
>
> In 2004, when faced with a requirement that she play 20 USCF rated
> games in order to meet the activity requirement, Polgar proceeded to
> play 20 rated games against Class-B and Class-C players in her own
> chess club. This is why Former US Woman's Champion Anjelina
> Belakovskaia wrote that Polgar was "only brave enough to face
> beginners".
>
> For this reason, the board passed the following rule for the 2006
> Olympiad. This may explain why she has not even tried to qualify since
> then. Polgar has since then played no games at all which meet the
> current requirement. The rule, about which Susan now complains,
> states:
>
> "During the 12 month period prior to the computation of invitational
> rating, players should have played at least 30 games against opponents
> rated 2200 or above (2100 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) in FIDE-
> rated or USCF Grand Prix events. Foreign tournaments are acceptable.
> For opponents with no established USCF rating, those with a FIDE
> rating of 2100 or above (2000 or above for the Women=92s Olympiad) are
> counted. Tournaments rated only by the USCF=92s Quick Chess rating
> system do not count. Unplayed games do not count."
The rule strikes me as a bit harsh, not so much for a Susan Polgar but
for a (potential, but AFIK mythical) non-wealthy 2300 rated female
player in a state like Montana. Still, the chutzpah of complaining
about a law you caused by evading the intent of an old law is somewhat
impressive.
Jerry Spinrad
|
|
