PDA

View Full Version : US Championships 2009



Garvinator
13-05-2009, 01:06 AM
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2009/05/arbiter-ruling.html

Arbiter Rulings: Rnd 2, Sevillano-Lawton


A situation arose towards the end of the Sevillano-Lawton game in that Lawton was no longer keeping his scoresheet up to date and had more than 5 minutes remaining on his clock.


Article 8.1: “In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the ‘scoresheet’ prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3.”


“A player may reply to his opponent’s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.13) If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.”


Article 8.4: “If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.”

Lawton’s scoresheet was inaccurate due to some earlier missing moves and the fact that he stopped recording moves entirely when he still had over 8 minutes on his clock. At that time he was warned by the Arbiter that he had to record the missing moves and continue to record move by move. He wrote a few moves then stopped again. The Arbiter ruled that Lawton should correct his scoresheet, bring it up to date first, then continue to keep score until he had less than 5 minutes remaining. He protested, saying it would take too long.


At that point he had 6:53 minutes on his clock and his opponent had 4:34. He was provided with his opponent’s MonRoi scoresheet and instructed, again, to correct and complete his scoresheet. While doing so, interrupted by much objection, making moves and pressing his clock, Lawton’s time went under 5 minutes and he claimed that he now could stop writing since he had met the requirement of Article 8.4. However, the Arbiter ruled he should first accurately record all moves missed during the time he had ample time to write and while he was infringing that rule. The opponent’s scoresheet had been provided to help with the process. The arbiter even offered to read off the moves to him (other games in the room had finished).


Lawton chose to refuse to bring his scoresheet up to date, while not being allowed to continue the game until he had done so. This ultimately led to him losing the game on time.


Carol Jarecki, IA

Chief Arbiter

black
13-05-2009, 02:04 AM
Brilliant. Just brilliant.

Kevin Bonham
13-05-2009, 04:45 AM
Justice has been done I reckon. There are a lot of ways to handle this sort of player but provoking them into forfeiting the game in "protest" is a perfectly acceptable one whether premeditated or otherwise. :lol:

I would have dealt with it slightly differently (under FIDE laws, not sure how USCF differ). At the point where Lawton stopped scoring for the second time I would give the opponent a time bonus - say two minutes. I would have told Lawton he must commence filling in missed moves immediately on his own time and must not move again until he has updated his scoresheet or fallen below five minutes. If he then protested I would tell him he must desist from complaining about the ruling immediately or else I would rule the game won for his opponent.

Ian Rout
14-05-2009, 02:04 PM
Some of the comments on the Polgar blog show why a fair proportion of Internet users should not be given write access to blogs and bulletin boards.

It's a little surprising that a player in a major national championship would not know the rules, or would expect to get away with blatantly not following them. His USCF rating is 2350, which even after allowing for the inflation in US ratings means he should know a thing or two about chess. On the other hand he has no FIDE rating so is perhaps accustomed to local events where breaking rules and throwing McEnroe-like tantrums are more productive.

This tournament has a Bobby Fischer prize for anyone emulating Fischer's 100% score, though everybody is now out of contention. Mr Lawton has the only perfect score with 0/6 but there doesn't seem to be a Colonel Moreau Trophy.

Basil
14-05-2009, 02:39 PM
It's a little surprising that a player in a major national championship would not know the rules, or would expect to get away with blatantly not following them.
Perhaps an enlightened Australia shows the way in not pandering to chess pouting and 'God Complexes', which seem an inherent pre-requisite in many players, subsequently fanned by the tolerance thereof.

I believe there is a growing culture in this country to get baddaboom (not tolerate) on wets, intellectuals and 'hey-we're-not-playing-forsheepstations' and all other rule-flouting apologist types that is actually paying off.

Rincewind
14-05-2009, 02:43 PM
Some of the comments on the Polgar blog show why a fair proportion of Internet users should not be given write access to blogs and bulletin boards.

This comment intrigued but I was a bit disappointed as there were only a couple of really crazy things said. My favourites were...

"I'm surprised no technoology[sic] company has come out with an external recording device. With face recognition technology built into most cameras I'm sure its not that difficult."

"Bringing this up at such a late stage smacks of racism."

"It is a plot by the "man" to keep a brother down!

Represent!"

Although I suspect this last one was an attempt at satire as the user name was Homey D. Clown.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-05-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't understand why a US championship does not have at least 30s increment.

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2009, 05:52 PM
I don't understand why a US championship does not have at least 30s increment.

According to Mig (the official site doesn't seem to say) the time control is 40 moves in two hours then 20 in one hour, +5 seconds/move all the way through.

Quite an odd control. They seem to be keen to control the length of games even though it is only one game a day. The time control protects a player from ever having to lose on time, but a player who gets very low in an even slightly inferior position will lose anyway, unless it only happens a few moves before move 40.

Even odder, if they needed playoffs, they were going to play, wait for it ...

...armageddon rapid!


If two players tie for first, they will enter a tiebreak that begins at 5:00 pm or no earlier than an hour after the conclusion of either Player’s final round.

The base time for the game is 45 minutes+ 5 second increment. It will be a draw odds game (Black wins on a draw.) The players will both bid on the amount of time (minutes and seconds, a number equal or less to 45:00) that they are willing to play with in order to choose their color. The player who bid the lower number of time chooses his or her color and gets the amount of time they wrote down; the other side always receives 45:00. If both players pick exactly the same number, the chief arbiter will flip a coin to determine who shall choose their color.

If either player wins, he or she gets the title of U.S. Champion and the $5,000 Jackpot Bonus. If the game is a draw, Black wins the title of U.S. Champion, but the Jackpot Bonus will be split equally.

Perhaps they should call it the US Chess and Auction Bidding Strategy Championships. :rolleyes:

Oh, Nakamura (7/9) won by half a point over Onischuk and Hess with Kamsky and Akobian another half a point back, and our hero Lawton managed a heroic 1/9 after Shankland and Krush gave him sympathy draws in the final two rounds.

Ian Rout
18-05-2009, 07:29 PM
Oh, Nakamura (7/9) won by half a point over Onischuk and Hess with Kamsky and Akobian another half a point back, and our hero Lawton managed a heroic 1/9 after Shankland and Krush gave him sympathy draws in the final two rounds.
Great result by Hess ahead of all manner of big names. A teenager, I believe.

Rincewind
18-05-2009, 08:31 PM
Great result by Hess ahead of all manner of big names. A teenager, I believe.

Here is an interview (abotund 1 month old) with the young IM (and GM elect)

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9314/141/

Hess and Nakamura were joint leaders after 8 rounds and Nakamura had a quick victory over GM Friedel in the ninth. Hess had a tough game against GM Akobian which ended in a draw.

Hess-Akobian
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Nbd7 6. Nf3 h6 7. Nxf6+ Nxf6 8. Bh4 c5 9. c3 cxd4 10. Nxd4 Be7 11. Bd3 O-O 12. Bc2 e5 13. Nf5 Bxf5 14. Bxf5 g6 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Be4 Qxd1+ 17. Rxd1 Rad8 18. Ke2 b6 19. Bc6 Rxd1 20. Rxd1 Rd8 21. Rxd8+ Bxd8 22. Kd3 Kf8 23. Ke4 Bc7 24. Kd5 Ke7 25. Bb5 e4 26. Kxe4 f5+ 27. Ke3 g5 28. h3 Bf4+ 29. Kd4 Bc1 30. b3 Bd2 31. Ke5 Bxc3+ 32. Kxf5 Kf7 33. Ba6 Be1 34. f3 Bb4 35. g4 Ba3 36. Ke5 Ke7 37. Kd5 Kd7 38. Bb5+ Ke7 39. Kc6 Bc5 40. Ba6 Kd8 41. a4 Ke7 42. Kb7 b5 43. Bxb5 a5 1/2-1/2

Nakamura-Friedel
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Bd3 Be7 9. Nc3 O-O 10. O-O Rb8 11. h3 c5 12. b3 Rb4 13. Re1 Bb7 14. Ba3 Rf4 15. g3 Rd4 16. Nf3 Rxd3 17. cxd3 Qxd3 18. Nxe5 Qf5 19. g4 Qf4 20. d4 Rd8 21. Qe2 Rxd4 22. Bc1 1-0

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2009, 11:34 PM
Great result by Hess ahead of all manner of big names. A teenager, I believe.

Yes, he was born in 1991 and is already a GM-elect.

shan_siddiqi
12-07-2009, 09:24 AM
Some of the comments on the Polgar blog show why a fair proportion of Internet users should not be given write access to blogs and bulletin boards.

It's a little surprising that a player in a major national championship would not know the rules, or would expect to get away with blatantly not following them. His USCF rating is 2350, which even after allowing for the inflation in US ratings means he should know a thing or two about chess. On the other hand he has no FIDE rating so is perhaps accustomed to local events where breaking rules and throwing McEnroe-like tantrums are more productive.

This tournament has a Bobby Fischer prize for anyone emulating Fischer's 100% score, though everybody is now out of contention. Mr Lawton has the only perfect score with 0/6 but there doesn't seem to be a Colonel Moreau Trophy.

I just noticed this thread.

I'm actually from St. Louis, where the championship was held. I know Lawton personally... he's not exactly the most humble of players. He hasn't played in many tournaments for the last 20 years (maybe 1-2 real tournaments, and he was the highest-rated player by far in each one), and he's known jokingly as "King Charles" in the area because he (thinks he is) so much better than everybody else that he doesn't even bother playing. So, I'm not surprised that he's been creating unnecessary drama, now that his reputation is deteriorating... he loves to tell stories about all of the GMs and IMs that he's beaten. He only got into this tournament because he was the top-rated local player (and that's only because he's been immune to some of the recent rating deflation in the St. Louis area, since he rarely plays anymore).

As far as ratings, his 2350 is probably a fair FIDE estimate also. St. Louis ratings are notoriously deflated; my rating in St. Louis was 1683, but my ACF and FIDE ratings are 1900+ (about 2000 if I were to withdraw from the City of Sydney Championship now). There's a major USCF Grand Prix event in St. Louis every year (Mid-America Open), and most GMs/IMs have stopped showing up because a couple of them always end up getting upset by a local 2000-rated player.

shan_siddiqi
12-07-2009, 09:28 AM
I don't understand why a US championship does not have at least 30s increment.

US tournaments never have increments. Most of them only have a 5-second time delay, which means that you get an extra 5 seconds of thinking time on every move (to prevent somebody from losing a K+Q vs. K+P endgame when he has 1 second left on a clock). The "odd" time control at this tournament is actually typical there... I actually thought that the 30-second increment was "odd" when I first came here.

There must be some sort of historical reason.

Garvinator
12-07-2009, 12:56 PM
US tournaments never have increments. Most of them only have a 5-second time delay, which means that you get an extra 5 seconds of thinking time on every move (to prevent somebody from losing a K+Q vs. K+P endgame when he has 1 second left on a clock). The "odd" time control at this tournament is actually typical there... I actually thought that the 30-second increment was "odd" when I first came here.

There must be some sort of historical reason.
My understanding for why a lot of the tournaments in USA are held with a 5 second Bronstein/time delay is that players are required to bring their own clocks at least.

Some people bring analogues, so those using digitals with a 5 second Bronstein increment is about as close to the same conditions as those using analogues and guillotine finishes.

For the US Championships, they should be using digitals on all boards (major event and all that), so using a time control that allows the best play possible should be the first requirement. Hence our surprise if there is either no increment for the final time control, or just a 5 second Bronstein increment.

shan_siddiqi
12-07-2009, 03:27 PM
Hmm... maybe they just wanted to try to keep the time controls consistent with what people are accustomed to. We all know how fussy some chess players can be.