chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Ylon Schwartz
  
Number of games in database: 39
Years covered: 1994 to 2018
Last FIDE rating: 2258 (2252 rapid, 2248 blitz)
Highest rating achieved in database: 2366

Overall record: +12 -22 =5 (37.2%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Sicilian (4) 
    B40 B43 B27
With the Black pieces:
 Sicilian (6) 
    B60 B40 B54 B57 B81
 Modern Benoni (4) 
    A58 A59 A57
 Benko Gambit (4) 
    A58 A59 A57
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   M A Feeney vs Y Schwartz, 1999 0-1
   Y Schwartz vs S J Szpisjak, 2000 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   28th World Open (2000)
   Reykjavik Open (2006)

RECENT GAMES:
   🏆 Gibraltar Masters
   M Antipov vs Y Schwartz (Jan-23-18) 1-0
   Y Schwartz vs F V Gomez (Dec-22-17) 0-1
   Guanchu Liu vs Y Schwartz (Dec-20-17) 1-0
   E Can vs Y Schwartz (Dec-15-17) 1-0
   R Li vs Y Schwartz (Oct-11-14) 1-0

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Ylon Schwartz
Search Google for Ylon Schwartz
FIDE player card for Ylon Schwartz


YLON SCHWARTZ
(born Feb-26-1970, 52 years old) United States of America

[what is this?]

FIDE Master and professional poker player.

Wikipedia article: Ylon Schwartz

Last updated: 2019-08-07 07:39:37

 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 48  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Y Schwartz vs Yermolinsky  0-1401994New York opE41 Nimzo-Indian
2. Y Schwartz vs Benjamin  0-162199523rd World OpenB01 Scandinavian
3. Y Schwartz vs Ziatdinov  0-1271995New York opD35 Queen's Gambit Declined
4. Y Schwartz vs T Thorhallsson  0-1331996World opD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
5. Y Schwartz vs D H Levin  ½-½361998USA-chT Amateur EastA46 Queen's Pawn Game
6. J Erskine vs Y Schwartz  0-1301998USA-chT Amateur EastA07 King's Indian Attack
7. Y Schwartz vs Wojtkiewicz  0-1341998World opB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
8. A Potapov vs Y Schwartz  1-0391999Komercni Banka opA58 Benko Gambit
9. M A Feeney vs Y Schwartz  0-1181999100th US OpenB57 Sicilian
10. Y Schwartz vs Blatny 0-1322000Foxwoods opB00 Uncommon King's Pawn Opening
11. Y Schwartz vs S J Szpisjak  1-024200028th World OpenD11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
12. Y Schwartz vs O Adu  1-039200028th World OpenE60 King's Indian Defense
13. Shulman vs Y Schwartz 1-029200028th World OpenA59 Benko Gambit
14. Kotronias vs Y Schwartz  1-032200028th World OpenB60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer
15. A Dunne vs Y Schwartz  0-159200129th World OpenA57 Benko Gambit
16. A Raetsky vs Y Schwartz  1-0272001MTOA31 English, Symmetrical, Benoni Formation
17. Y Schwartz vs M A Becker  1-0592001MTOE12 Queen's Indian
18. Cherniaev vs Y Schwartz  1-0362001MTOB01 Scandinavian
19. Y Schwartz vs J Strauss  1-0232001MTOA53 Old Indian
20. B Vuckovic vs Y Schwartz  1-0312001MTOB60 Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer
21. Y Schwartz vs B Amin  1-0402001MTOE00 Queen's Pawn Game
22. M Klinova vs Y Schwartz  1-0352001MTOB40 Sicilian
23. Y Schwartz vs I Ionica  1-0402001MTOE61 King's Indian
24. Y Schwartz vs K Bischoff  0-1272001IV Pyramiden-FrankenB40 Sicilian
25. J Lank vs Y Schwartz  ½-½362001Fall FuturityB54 Sicilian
 page 1 of 2; games 1-25 of 48  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Schwartz wins | Schwartz loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-14-08  Riverbeast: The sad thing is, the TV replays are only going to show the hands Schwartz lost....They won't show how well he was playing at the beginning, when everyone was playing super tight (the first 40 or 50 hands didn't even see a flop!) and Ylon was the most aggressive bettor.....

He was stealing hands left and right and was the chip leader at one point.

Schwartz chose the wrong time to bluff Eastgate, but his stack was dwindling and he had to make a move....And the way Eastgate was playing (and hitting cards) I don't know if anyone would have beaten him

Nov-14-08  Shams: <The sad thing is, the TV replays are only going to show the hands Schwartz lost....They won't show how well he was playing at the beginning, when everyone was playing super tight (the first 40 or 50 hands didn't even see a flop!) and Ylon was the most aggressive bettor.....>

man, tell me about it. I missed the first 20 minutes of the telecast; the first hand I saw Schwartz was a 70-30 preflop favorite but his big pair lost when an ace fell on the flop. he lost a giant pot-- but after that, it showed his chip count at over 20 million, nearly double where he started! clearly we missed some major action.

poker on tv would be educational if they showed every single hand. as it is, I don't think it's very useful for learning.

Nov-15-08  johnsbrother: Yes I'm sure TV doesn't do it justice. I followed some of the action on the net. You can see all the hands here (in text form): http://www.worldseriesofpoker.com/t.... Start at Day 8 for the final table.

That king of hearts flush lay down still amazes me. <Riverbeast> did Ylon think Demidov had a pocket pair that tripped the board giving him a full house?

<Shams> yes I really am John's brother and I could probably get you his autograph if you really wanted it! He's the coolest guy on the planet!

Nov-15-08  Shams: <johnsbrother> excellent point on the full house possibility-- I bet that was a factor in the Planters people not awarding Ylon the good instinct hardware.
Nov-15-08  whiskeyrebel: The TV replay was fun, but the way it was edited made it seem like a cheesy game show with all the whooping and hollering. I'd prefer more poker and less audience, but that's just me.
Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: I'm not crazy about poker on TV either....and neither is Ylon....

He said a lot of things publicly about how he doesn't like where poker has gone, from being an underground game to all the flash and TV and hype.

He also didn't like delaying the final table...It takes everyone out of their 'groove' just to hype it up some more...Meanwhile, they didn't give the players any piece of all that advertising revenue

Because of what he said, I think the organizers were happy he didn't win the bracelet....Because they would prefer to have someone win who would be more of an ambassador for the 'TV game'.

I don't like TV poker because you have a lot of guys acting out when the camera's on them...Engaging in histrionics and drama at the table...In a normal poker game, this would be the most obnoxious behavior imaginable

Nov-17-08  VinnyRoo2002: I attended part of the final table at the Rio and I wanted to point out that the crowd was extremely raucous and part of the event. I think that's why the editors showed the audience so frequently. Also, broadcasting every hand is simply unrealistic. They were playing for well over 14 hours. I agree about the heads-up match up being poorly edited; however, two hands is simply not enough. I am curious why Ylon doesn't like poker being mainstream. After all, if it wasn't, he probably wouldn't be a millionaire right now. If anything, it seems to have benefitted him quite nicely.
Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: <I am curious why Ylon doesn't like poker being mainstream. After all, if it wasn't, he probably wouldn't be a millionaire right now.>

The WSOP was giving multimillion dollar prizes long before it started being televised.

When you have 7,000 players entering, most of whom pay a $10K entry fee, the top finishers will get millions of dollars whether it's hyped up on TV or not.

I also have mixed feelings about it...because the fact is, at least 95% of 'professional' players are going broke.

The TV hype makes everyone think that they can be celebrities too....And it's purpose is to bring more suckers to the table, in search of money and fame that probably will never come.

Having Eastgate win at the age of 22 will probably have negative effects also...Now there are going to be a lot of teenage kids who think they can drop out of school, play poker all the time, so they can be "the next Peter Eastgate"

Nov-17-08  Shams: <I also have mixed feelings about it...because the fact is, at least 95% of 'professional' players are going broke.>

YES. Huck Seed won the main event and five years later he was a net loser at the game. Given your friend's history of parlous budgeting, I really hope for his sake that he is prudent with the dough.

Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: <Shams> Very true...Ylon told me there are many other bracelet winners, and high finishers at the WSOP, that are broke now...I won't mention names but it's much more common than people realize.

He quoted Doyle Brunson in one of his interviews: "The successful poker players have no respect for the value of a dollar."

So do you think they suddenly learn the value of a dollar after they get all that cash??

Most of them burn through it like a hot knife through butter.

Ylon is a smart guy....And he is fully aware that he could end up in the same sad situation, unless he's careful...

Nov-17-08  VinnyRoo2002: <riverbeast> you are just plain inaccurate on some of your statements. You wrote, "The WSOP was giving multimillion dollar prizes long before it started being televised."

In 2000, Chris Ferguson won the main event and won 1.5 million. That isn't multi-million and only the winner earned a million dollars. Although in fairness, second place was pretty close, 896k. If you aren't talking about the main event, but the other events, well, those events aren't nearly as hyped or televised as the main event, so I don't think they fall into the category of events that Ylon is complaining about.

Also you wrote, "When you have 7,000 players entering, most of whom pay a $10K entry fee, the top finishers will get millions of dollars whether it's hyped up on TV or not."

Did you ever think the field consists of 7,000 players because it is televised? Before television broadcasts, the field was significantly smaller. I'll once again cite the 2000 main event, where there were "only" 512 entrants. I re-iterate that if it wasn't for the hype, Ylon probably would not be a millionaire right now. And that has nothing to do with his poker playing skills, personally, I think he was the best player at the final table. But the odds relative to the size of the field increase when there are so many amateurs and "weak" players, compared to the past when most players were either pros or highly respected amateur players.

I agree that suckers are coming to poker due to the TV hype, but I think inviting suckers to poker has always been part of the game. After all, if your goal is to make money, I'd much rather sit at a table with 8 weak players, then 8 pros. I believe there is a comedian who said that when it comes to poker, it doesn't matter who the guy (or girl) is, as long as they're terrible, you'll invite them. If it's your best friend and they are bad at poker, you invite them to the game, if it's your sworn enemy and they suck, you invite them too. If they are good, you forget to call them for the evening. I'm not going to blame television for poor poker players thinking they can win the main event. Society has no obligation to protect idiots from their own dumb decisions.

Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: <VinnyRoo2002> Okay, lets not say "multimillion dollar"...Let's say "million dollar plus"

I think the increased size of WSOP fields has as much to do with internet play as it does TV...Although the two, no doubt, feed off each other

The TV helps to attract those who want to be famous...Which I admit, is probably a lot of people.

All I'm saying is, Ylon was not interested in the fame....And delaying the final table inconvenienced the players, but didn't really put much extra $$ in their pockets.

They had the opportunity to try to get endorsements on their own, but most of them couldn't...Or they got very minor ones....and the ones they got from Pokerstars.com could have been had without delaying the final table for four months....

< I'm not going to blame television for poor poker players thinking they can win the main event. Society has no obligation to protect idiots from their own dumb decisions.>

True, but we're talking about a game that becomes an addiction for a lot of people...There are a lot of smart alcoholics and cocaine addicts....They don't abuse drugs because they make 'dumb decisions'

I just think it's dangerous to glamorize and hype a game that destroys a lot of people's lives...No matter how much my friend may have benefitted...and I think that's why he had mixed feelings about it as well.

He got into poker because he didn't want to do anything else....It really was his choice....But a lot of these kids watching it on TV may not have thought about being a pro poker player before, but now think it's a viable career choice!

Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: P.S. I don't know if Ylon was the best player at the final table...I think he was one of the best, but he admitted he made a few mistakes.

Eastgate seemed to play flawlessly, and was impossible to read...Demidov also admitted that Eastgate outplayed him in the heads-up match.

Phillips, on the other hand, didn't seem to know what he was doing at all in the key hands!

I think this is another reason why scrubs think they have a chance at no-limit hold'em...It's possible to play like an idiot and still win!

Meanwhile, some guys know all the theory in the world, make all the percentage plays, and still lose more often than not....

One reason why I think I would go nuts if I tried to play poker for a living

Nov-17-08  VinnyRoo2002: I'm sure every player at the final table made some mistakes, Eastgate included. I'll stick with my opinion that Ylon was the best player at the table.

As for making all the right percentage plays and losing more often than not, statistically, that is close to impossible. Especially if you play a significant amount of poker. In fact, a lot of those so called "coin flips," if you're on the 45% side, in the long run, you are going to lose a lot of money.

Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: <I'm sure every player at the final table made some mistakes, Eastgate included>

True - We just didn't see Eastgate's mistakes!

But he knocked out all the other top five finishers....Montgomery (a lucky one!)...Schwartz....Phillips...and Demidov

How much of that was Eastgate playing well?

Eastgate hits the only out, on the river, to knock out Montgomery...But Montgomery was getting lucky too...He was known as being something of an irrational player....So maybe in his case it was "live by the sword, die by the sword".

Ylon was bluffing and winning a lot early on, so he decided to bluff at the worst time...Maybe another case of being "hoist on his own petard"

Phillips was playing like an idiot from what I could see, and he went down playing like an idiot...I think he went all in with 10-9 off suit...I forgot what Eastgate had but I think it was trips...Phillips ends up drawing dead at the river....

I wouldn't call those hands lucky on Eastgate's part...It seemed more like his opponents' playing styles coming back to bite....

But Eastgate's final hand against Demidov....Hitting the inside wheel with a 4 on the turn...The same 4 that gave Demidov two pair, and induced him to go all-in.

It just seemed like destiny...It was Eastgate's tournament....

The real travesty is that Phillips finished higher than Ylon...Maybe his untelevised hands were played better than the ones on TV...But from the ones I saw, he really looked lost

Even the commentators were making jokes about it...Apparently Phillips took some lessons before the final table...One of the commentators said "Maybe he should sue his teachers for malpractice!"

But this is the same guy who was the chip leader going in! So what does that tell you?

Was he playing like a genius up until the final table, and then suddenly forgot how to play ? Was he getting lucky beforehand? Or was he actually better than the televised hands showed?

You sound like an experienced player yourself...I would be interested to hear your opinions based on what you saw

<As for making all the right percentage plays and losing more often than not, statistically, that is close to impossible>

What I meant by that is, even the very best players don't cash at least 85% of the time....I just think I couldn't be a pro player, because I wouldn't be able to handle all that losing

Nov-17-08  VinnyRoo2002: Thanks riverbeast for your comforting demeanor during these discussions. I am far from an expert at poker, but I do enjoy playing and would also say I'm far from a beginner. Also, I agree that if you can't handle the losing that comes with playing tournament poker, then yes, I wouldn't recommend playing poker. If you really love poker and would like to play if it wasn't for this fact, I'd recommend playing online in sit-n-go's where there are only nine players or even playing heads-up matches. This way you'll know pretty quickly if you are playing well or not. Now on to the hands:

When Montgomery had A-4 against Eastgate's sixes, Eastgate did not get lucky. When the chips were pushed into the middle, Eastgate was a solid favorite. After all, Montgomery only has 3 outs, with the exception of hitting an ace high flush or a straight. Montgomery was lucky to hit the two aces in the first place. Against Phillips, yeah, Phillips made a bad play with 10-9o and he obviously picked a bad spot since Eastgate hit his set. I will say that while Phillips was one of if not the worst player at the final table perhaps he was much better than the average player at the World Series hence his large chip stock. And yes, no doubt he was running extremely hot. I'm definitely not trying to say there is no luck in poker.

As for the hand with Ylon, I think Ylon got unlucky that Eastgate hit the five (or "miracle five" as Ylon said) on the river, otherwise, that was a great play. If any card other than a five fell, then Eastgate would have had to fold. In fact, Ylon played that hand beautifully I thought. Calling on the turn, then check-raising the river. He definitely represented having a king really well. In fact, I think Eastgate thought he had a king, but thought the odds were in his favor that he didn't hit his other card to make a bigger full house.

Against Demidov, Demidov basically bluffed his chips off. Of course, the 4 on the turn was a terrible card for Demidov, but even without that hand, Eastgate had him crippled. I forgot the exact chip count, but it was some insane amount.

I was thinking through the previous world series events when the field was a reasonable size and it's amazing how the same players kept reappearing near the top. So there must be some skill to the game on top of luck. After reading poker books and playing, I am sure of this much at least.

Nov-17-08  Riverbeast: <As for the hand with Ylon, I think Ylon got unlucky that Eastgate hit the five (or "miracle five" as Ylon said) on the river, otherwise, that was a great play. If any card other than a five fell, then Eastgate would have had to fold.>

That's right, Eastgate had a weak pair of 5s in the hole, right? So maybe that bluff wasn't as bad as it appeared.

Personally I've always preferred blackjack, because I always thought it a much more systematic game...When Ylon was on one of his bad streaks I tried to talk him out of playing poker, and suggested he take up 21...Good thing he didn't listen to me ;-)

Anyway, good luck in your own poker endeavors...And if you ever get the 'big score', take the money and run!

Nov-18-08  Granny O Doul: <Riverbeast> "hoist ON his own petard" doesn't really work, as a petard is a type of explosive. Either "with" or "by" fills the bill; I believe Shakes used "with".
Nov-18-08  you vs yourself: <If any card other than a five fell, then Eastgate would have had to fold.>

The reason Eastgate bet turn is not as a bluff but to protect his hand. However betting when the 2nd king hit also had the added value of looking like a bluff. If Ylon thought Peter was bluffing, he should've raised turn(best of 3 options) or called both turn and river(depending on the type of card and bet size).

If the river was not a 5, then Eastgate obviously checks as his 5s are good enough for showdown value in a heads up pot.

As for the King high flush fold by Ylon, it was pretty good. It would've been great if not for the bet sizing by Demidov. He bet less than half the pot on the river, basically begging for a call. You could argue it was a metagame bet or whatever but the way the rest of the table has been playing, I don't think Demidov would be exploding the pot by check raising turn so he can bluff the river against a good hand reader.

Nov-18-08  Strongest Force: Not knowing much about poker, i was surprised when Ylon stated in his Chesslife Online article at the end of august, that the kinds of chessplayers who would be successful at poker would be the Tal-Tate types. Now i understand how Ylon got involved with poker.

http://main.uschess.org/content/vie...

Nov-18-08  Riverbeast: <Granny O Doul> Thanks for the correction

<you vs yourself> Interesting insights also....It seems there may be more psychology in top flight poker, than skill or luck !

Sep-18-10  wordfunph: Ylon Schwartz?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/inpioneer...

Nov-21-11  Mudphudder: Ylon is right though...Tal played a style that is (relative to more conservative players) risk-taking. Even though Tal obviously calculated his sacrifices, sacrifices are by definition a gamble of some sort.

So in poker, calculated bets are made everytime and the bigger risk-takers will know when to make a bigger bluff. If timed right, the bigger bet (or the bigger sacrifice as in chess) will lead to an impressive win. Chess can be so similar to poker when considering the calculated risks that players take.

Jun-17-12  Shams: Chess Master and friend of <Riverbeast> Ylon Schwartz has won his first WSOP bracelet, and pocketed $267k in the bargain, with a victory in the $1,500 H.O.R.S.E. event happening now in Vegas. H.O.R.S.E. requires very well-rounded play so this is a huge win for Schwartz, though not nearly as lucrative as his final table finish in the main event three years ago.

Event #27 here:
http://www.wsop.com/tournaments/res...

Jul-17-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Riverbeast....(Ylon Schwartz) quoted Doyle Brunson in one of his interviews: "The successful poker players have no respect for the value of a dollar."

So do you think they suddenly learn the value of a dollar after they get all that cash??>

Long story short: from much experience, I can tell you that there is a great duality in the all-encompassing need to have money while simultaneously attaching no importance to it.

<VinnyRoo2002....As for making all the right percentage plays and losing more often than not, statistically, that is close to impossible. Especially if you play a significant amount of poker. In fact, a lot of those so called "coin flips," if you're on the 45% side, in the long run, you are going to lose a lot of money....>

Required reading for anyone who believes even top professionals always 'run good', and which explains how Johnny Chan's first Main Event win, in 1987, was more an aberration than the usual bill of fare, as he had eleven 'coin-flip' situations at that final table and came out winner of every one of them.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  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:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. 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.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player 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!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC