|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28 |
     |
 |
| Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
| 1. T Abrahamyan vs C Baginskaite |
 | 1-0 | 69 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | C51 Evans Gambit |
| 2. R Goletiani vs I Zenyuk |
| ½-½ | 66 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A10 English |
| 3. A Zatonskih vs A Melekhina |
| ½-½ | 49 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | C44 King's Pawn Game |
| 4. I Krush vs S Foisor |
| 0-1 | 30 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | D12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav |
| 5. I Zenyuk vs A Zatonskih |
| 0-1 | 31 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E30 Nimzo-Indian, Leningrad |
| 6. I Krush vs T Abrahamyan |
| 1-0 | 20 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E10 Queen's Pawn Game |
| 7. C Baginskaite vs R Goletiani |
| 1-0 | 40 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A70 Benoni, Classical with 7.Nf3 |
| 8. S Foisor vs A Melekhina |
| 1-0 | 79 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E94 King's Indian, Orthodox |
| 9. A Zatonskih vs C Baginskaite |
| ½-½ | 37 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E06 Catalan, Closed, 5.Nf3 |
| 10. A Melekhina vs I Zenyuk |
| 0-1 | 38 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B25 Sicilian, Closed |
| 11. R Goletiani vs I Krush |
| 0-1 | 43 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B67 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer Attack, 7...a6 Defense, 8...Bd7 |
| 12. T Abrahamyan vs S Foisor |
| ½-½ | 47 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B45 Sicilian, Taimanov |
| 13. I Krush vs A Zatonskih |
| 1-0 | 60 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | D31 Queen's Gambit Declined |
| 14. S Foisor vs I Zenyuk |
| 1-0 | 59 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A57 Benko Gambit |
| 15. C Baginskaite vs A Melekhina |
| 1-0 | 39 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E62 King's Indian, Fianchetto |
| 16. T Abrahamyan vs R Goletiani |
| 1-0 | 41 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B42 Sicilian, Kan |
| 17. I Zenyuk vs C Baginskaite |
| 0-1 | 37 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E31 Nimzo-Indian, Leningrad, Main line |
| 18. R Goletiani vs S Foisor |
| 1-0 | 67 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A30 English, Symmetrical |
| 19. A Melekhina vs I Krush |
| 0-1 | 72 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B52 Sicilian, Canal-Sokolsky (Rossolimo) Attack |
| 20. A Zatonskih vs T Abrahamyan |
| 0-1 | 70 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E63 King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation |
| 21. T Abrahamyan vs A Melekhina |
| ½-½ | 37 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | B33 Sicilian |
| 22. S Foisor vs C Baginskaite |
| ½-½ | 26 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | D38 Queen's Gambit Declined, Ragozin Variation |
| 23. R Goletiani vs A Zatonskih |
| 0-1 | 41 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A13 English |
| 24. I Krush vs I Zenyuk |
| 1-0 | 36 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | E99 King's Indian, Orthodox, Taimanov |
| 25. A Zatonskih vs S Foisor |
| 1-0 | 47 | 2011 | US Championship (Women) | A07 King's Indian Attack |
|
| page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 28 |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-26-11 | | boz: I agree with <beenthere240>. There is no point to the playoff. It's like playing a tiebreaker when there is no tie. In fact it's saying a single rapid armageddon game is more important than an entire series of classical games. Farcical. |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | bharatiy: wow, if you want to declare Irina winning it with 5.5/7, there will be "purist" out who will say Champion has to be decided in a match and not in a tournament. |
|
Apr-26-11
 | | HeMateMe: Thats a very good point. Its a tournament, not match play. If the tournament is too short, then play another round robin. If IK won the event, as mentioned above, she shouldn't have to somehow "prove it again" by playing a match, with such dubious parameters. |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <beenthere240: Krush won the classical part outright with a 5.5/7 score, a point ahead of the competition. Why they have to add a rapid playoff when there's not a tie is beyond me.> It wasn't "the classical part," it was merely the qualifying phase. Many competitions work this way, including the most successful in the world, the football world cup. If you don't like it that's one thing, but it's clearly a tie based on the fact that they split their classical games in the semi-final. |
|
Apr-26-11
| | HeMateMe: ...They don't seem to do this at Wijk am Zee, Linares, Dortmund, London....so why finish with matches at the US championships? |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | turbo231: <hellopolgar: <Maurice Ashley is much too much for me, did you see how he dismissed Naka? And he had a lot of silly comments, almost as puerile as me, but not quite.> more info would be nice...video link?>
Sure start at the 30:30 mark when Naka walked up to give his insight on the game. http://www.saintlouischessclub.org/...
® |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: < HeMateMe: ...They don't seem to do this at Wijk am Zee, Linares, Dortmund, London....so why finish with matches at the US championships?> What do those tournaments have to do with the US championship? It existed before all of them. The world championship doesn't follow the format of any of those tournaments either (at least, not since Mexico 2007). In fact, they don't even share the same format among each other. Dortmund even has even experimented with different formats: Dortmund Sparkassen (2004)
but of course that was truly strange. |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | Shams: <Many competitions work this way, including the most successful in the world, the football world cup.> The difference is world cup teams don't play *every other team in the world cup* during the qualifying phase. |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | bharatiy: I think if the organizer has told the players in advance what is going to happen and players agreed to it, then no one should complain. If at all this discussion should have happened when the initial rules were announced. Why discuss it now, may be before next year's championship. |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | Robin01: Looks like Anna is up a pawn. Does white have enough compensation for the pawn? Any computer analysis out there on the present position? |
|
| Apr-26-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <The difference is world cup teams don't play *every other team in the world cup* during the qualifying phase.> True enough, and that does make it a little more strange than in the mens section. But in the world cup, teams sometimes play (and beat) teams they lose to later in the elimination rounds. And everybody knew that the purpose was to qualify, not earn the most points, so adding them and saying one player won doesn't make much sense IMO. |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | BLarsen1967: <bharatiy> One possibility would be,and I'll freely admit that this too is far from being ideal - that if 2 players keep drawing and drawing,then let Houdini (or some other 'default' chess engine) analyze the games,Houdini will then decide which player came up with the best chess. At least this solution has something to do with CHESS,whereas reducing 2 brilliant immortal souls to mere monkey woodpushers (the faster the better),imo that's simply disgraceful! --- Why not keep the different formats separate? That's what they do in cricket,they would never even DREAM of mixing things. Chess too could be like that |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | beenthere240: I'll give you that the playoffs in baseball etc do add excitement (and, unlike with chess, revenue) And in the olden days, a team could have the National or American league championship sewn up weeks in advance. |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | bharatiy: <BLarsen> cricket is a different game, there is rarely a draw ( tie as they call it) in shorter version of game which is most popular. Ofcourse in test cricket there is a draw but there is a possibility of result but because of restricted time ( 5 days) they acept the draw. So comparing chess with cricket is not ideal. One can compare soccer (foootball), where chances of draw are quite good, in soccer draw is accepted in league phase, but not in knock out obviously, where to decide they either give them extra time ( loosly like rapids) and after that they fo for penalty shoot out like blitz or Armageddon for chess. There we dont hear complaints about penalty shoot out deciding a classical tournament. One has to understand that for being a professional event you have to have time bound results. I beleive playing rapids and blitz or Armageddon is better than coin toss. Analyzing with chess engine is in fact wrong,because ultimate result of chess game has to be check mate and not +4 or +5 evaluation. Specially if you can not convert so called advantage, then it in fact talks about chess-player's inability to play correct chess in case of advantage. Making them monkey wood-pushers is better than coin toss I guess. Also I dont think rapid or blitz play of a person roughly corresponds with his chess strength. I mention it roughly because I know 1600 player wont beat 2800 player or may be even 2500 player will find it difficult to beat a 2800 player. But of course a 2650 player can beat a 2800 player. But then 2800 player will have to pay the price for not showing his strength in classical format. |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <bharatiy>
That's more or less how I see it. |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | turbo231: A very complicated end game, it always is when you have a knight involved. I wouldn't have agreed to a draw if I were black, black can't lose, so why not play on and see if Anna makes a mistake? Nothing to lose and everything to gain. I like those odds, a big mistake by the young lady? I think so, and I bet Anna was very happy, I know I would have been. Show me that you wont make a mistake! |
|
| Apr-27-11 | | hungry hippo: <turbo> there was a forced draw anyways. 70..B3 71 Nd4 and the pawn is lost and the king gets to the other pawn. |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | turbo231: You're right it was a dead draw. |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | BLarsen1967: <bharatiy> Why I brought cricket into the discussion: If we look at the national teams,in test cricket India is clearly best with 128 rating points,Australia is placed only 5th with 107 rp,but in ODI cricket (one-day-international) Australia tops with 128 rp - moving to T20 cricket,in that format actually England are the current champions.
I think these facts reflect why they're never mixing the diff. formats in cricket,the 3 different formats are treated as 3 different sports,like,most nations are not even allowed to play test cricket.
So why not have a similar system in the chess world? We all know from own experience that playing a classical game is very very different from playing a 25m rapid or even a blitz game - and it really pains me a lot when seeing a fantastic player like Irina Krush blunder like a 1650 player in a way she'd never do under normal circumstances,to me that's not 'exciting' at all,it's just sad |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | drnooo: The main reason I am against ANY kind of forced stupidity such as tiebreaks, rapids or otherwise, is there is no real good reason to do so. OK. Now we are down to two. Let the others go home.
Enough money is usually on the line for an extra day or even a week to decide the outcome in classical chess. Its hardly as if you have an entire team waiting around, suitcases packed.
Two guys doing what they apparently can do little else, play chess. They might even enjoy the layover, the hotel, whatever.
As for rapid or blitz championship, having a classical tournament decided in such idiocy is only because we have gotten used it. Just as we now hve gotten used to world championship matches decided in ten or twelve games. But if that's what floats your boat, fine by me, just don't spit on my neck and tell me the fog is rolling in. |
|
Apr-28-11
 | | Peligroso Patzer: The games from the fourth-place playoff, the semifinals and finals do not seem to be accessible through this page. Are they currently available anywhere on the CG site? |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | beenthere240: I felt terrible for Krush, but then I figured, it's just life. If that's the way these tournaments are settled, you just have to learn how to win that type of game as well. This tournament just happened to have a big payday, so it's tough to skip. |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <and it really pains me a lot when seeing a fantastic player like Irina Krush blunder like a 1650 player in a way she'd never do under normal circumstances> I Krush vs S Foisor, 2011 hmmmm |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | researchj: Brava Anna! |
|
| Apr-28-11 | | turbo231: Black has too much advantage in a Armageddon game. I wonder what's the winning percentage in these games. Of course a draw is a win for black. I think they should have set the schedule so the finals would have been played on a weekend instead of a weekday. Congratulations to Anna on a job well done! |
|
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.
NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|
Kibitzing
