I agreed totally, rule is rule, especially from FIDE

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4686

here's a link for the end of the game for those who haven't seen it. 

most of Black's movements in the last 10 seconds were in her back rank.  i suppose the issue is that her hand is open and over the piece she is going to move, but i don't see any space behind the board where she could have put her hand anyway, except for a chin rest... but that seems a little absurd under time pressure. it looks to me like the loss was made by white playing moves that were on black's side of the board, unless they were forced. white fumbles a rook that rolls around black's side and white also fumbles a pawn in this heated melee.  but, it does not affect black's strategy... which appears to be move the rook 1 space to the space not attacked by a rook and hit the clock (unless the rook moves were forced responses but i didn't make too much of an effort to look at positions) What happens to the rook that got fumbled anyway? i would think that white would have to pick it up and play it right before hitting the clock... no?

i love the way the white king flies off the table. "AHH.... C'mon!!!"

 

I like this paragraph, which in my opinion says it all:

"I argued that the notion of a champion implies that they have in some way distinguished themselves as better than their competition. Does anyone feel that saving yourself a few seconds by executing your moves on your opponent’s time is a demonstration of chess superiority? " 

by Marshal_Dillon - 9 hours ago
New Jersey United States

Someone here brought up a good point against using blitz to determine a winner in that someone with a physical or mental handicap who is unable to make the lightning quick moves required in a blitz game will certainly almost always lose if they make it to the final round. For that reason alone blitz should never be allowed to be the deciding factor in tournaments.

One of the most intellegent person's in the world is handicap, in a wheelchair. The otherside of that coin is this person will not be able to physically move a chess piece with his hands in a game of speed.

Also in any race, there is a line you don't cross until the official says go. It seems to be an unfair advantage to be standing at the finishing line when the official says go.

Using one hand when playing blitz is a start.

Having an agreement of the rules between all parties before each game starts is good.

As in the Olympic Games, if the final ruling is bad then the trophy is not given to the parties involved.  The competitors play again later under the flag honor and sportsmanship.

What is different here, is in Chess the competitor has more say on the outcome. 

 

Irina Krush,

Bravo!!!!

Beautifully executed, direct, from the heart response.

You hold the torch of honor ! 

Someone here brought up a good point against using blitz to determine a winner in that someone with a physical or mental handicap who is unable to make the lightning quick moves required in a blitz game will certainly almost always lose if they make it to the final round. For that reason alone blitz should never be allowed to be the deciding factor in tournaments.

Duffer1965:  "I think it's demeaning to Irina to say that she should be excused for being emotional because she's a woman." It is? I think u misunderstood what I said. All I'm saying is that it was an emotional event. I mean it's the Women's U.S. Championship. It's not necessary demeaning saying someone is emotional. If u would have checked my profile, u would have seen that she is one of my favorite players. Why would I degrade one of my favorite players? Men get emotional too. I've noticed people misinterpret what I say fairly often on this website. I won't allude to anything when I make a post on this website; I'll be straight up w/ them. I apologize to u if u took this the wrong way.

Anna's comments may get her in trouble if she's not careful. It's wise for her to stay quiet for as long as possible.

A question that seems pertinent here would be to ask what the organisers would have done if one of the players had a physical disability - something that clearly impaired their ability to move at the speed required for a fair contest.

It's clear that Blitz and 'Armageddon' type play-offs are not true tests of chess ability - or at best, only a crude way of determining who can move fastest without leaving a backrank mate on. It might be fun in a casual setting; but it's toxic to serious chess.

All the bad feeling that has been generated in this situation should not be blamed on the players, but on a culture that values speed, thrill seeking and immediate results.

 

Based on Irina's first letter, I suspect that she felt an extraordinary level of frustration because, as she noted, at one point she had a substantial time advantage -- like 8 seconds to 2 seconds -- and I think she must have thought: I can't possibly lose, because Anna is going to run out of time. And when Irina's time expired, she must have felt like she'd been robbed. I can understand how she would feel. Even in the madness of Armaggedon time, it's hard to figure out how your opponent can be playing the same game you are and use less than 1 second when you use 8.

I think it's demeaning to Irina to say that she should be excused for being emotional because she's a woman.  She's emotional because it was an emotional event. It must have been incredibly frustrating, and even a bit humiliating. If she's behaved badly afterwards, then knock her for it; if she's behaved in an understandable way, so be it. Don't try to make her into someone less responsible for her actions than any other player.

A lot of people are knocking Irina about doing the "sour grapes" thing by complaining, but to me she will always be beautiful on the outside as well as the inside (as well as Anna). This was a very emotional moment for her. Most women are emotional & sensitive, & we need to take this into consideration.

You know what a game is like in which the opponent is allowed to touch and move their pieces while you are hitting your clock?  It's a total mess.  Because someone is doing the 'anna k' maneuever, you have to counter by also moving as fast as possible.  Both sides are moving on their opponent's time therefore there's a huge mess of hands over the board and there's more physical fighting than actual chess going on. 

Please, stop the madness.

I beat a person with a rating of around 1800 in a blitz (8 0) game, but I definitely don't claim to be better than them in OTB. The difference between a classical and an Armageddon game is gargantuan. Therefore the USCF title shouldn't (at least for regular chess OTB) be decided by an Armageddon game.

I have never seen a blitz tourney, but, that ending was repulsive.  Both players were moving before the other finished, and pieces flying!  Its so gross I cant stop watching:)  I hope some good comes out of this, like no blitz games to decide the US Champion.  The best thing they could do is play a secret game to determine the real champion, and then dont tell anybody who won.  That would be exciting.

agree with Arthegall all the way

This incident reminds me -- in a much less important way -- of the disputed 2000 election for US president. A little known fact was that in every election approximately 1-2% of votes were not counted because of some sort of error in the system -- either the fault of the voter or the equipment used to count. If the election is decided by a margin of around 4-5%, this error rate is insignificant and so had been happily ignored by all. But if an election is decided by a margin less than 0.5%, that margin of error looms large. Something like that happened here: The chess performance of Anna and Irina during the tournament was a tie, and eventually the title was awarded based on a game that it seems most people would agree is hardly an accurate test of "true" chess ability, even when perfectly played by both sides. (As distinct from blitz chess ability, which is no doubt an admirable accomplishment in its own right, but definitely a different though clearly related one.) And in this case there seems to be room for complaints on both sides as to how imperfectly the game was played.

Probably the simplest answer to Irina's complaint is one that USCF gave in part: she did not protest in time and so there's nothing they could do about it after the fact. You can argue whether it was wise for USCF to then go on to opine that in fact nothing had gone wrong, suggesting that if Irina had protested in time, the protest would have been denied.

The "aftermath" of the 2000 US election was that a lot of people took a hard look for probably the first time at how "fair" the vote tabulation system was in the US. It may be that USCF should take a hard look at using an armaggedon match to resolve championships, although, frankly I don't think there is going to be a "perfect" solution. It would likely be a mistake, however, to rush to judgment about making a change after an "ugly" incident like this, when emotion is running high. 

 

I am just glad it raised the issue of how stupid it is to decide a winner with a 5 0 blitz match. Whoever decided that was the best way to pick the best player out of a tournament is a complete idiot. Moving pieces back and from from the same squares as fast as possible should not determine who is a champion. Just plain silly. Not even a game to be proud about winning. No chess technique. Just hand technique.

I just don't understand what Irina is complaining about. As a veteran of many OTB blitz tournaments I simply didn't see anything going on in the video that doesn't happen in a normal time scramble. Seemed to me that Anna was simply a stronger blitz player. Starting your move when your opponent is about to start the clock is simply normal in blitz and nothing unethical about it. Also if we want to talk about ethics or "rights" in this game, Anna had the right to hammer on the clock when Irina knocked over the rook and make her correct it on her own time as is Anna's right in this instance.  What struck me also about this video is that even when making all those fast moves, Anna ALWAYS places her pieces on a square and never knocks them over...so just well played in my book!

That brings us to the point if such a championship should be decided in such a blitz game where basically random things can happen in the end. Of course they SHOULDN'T and I agree with that. However in this instance both players were fully aware that the championship would be decided in this matter and therefore I don't understand a claim of wanting to be co-champion. This is just like in soccer....a penalty shootout isn't the most gracious way to decide a winner but both teams know it will be decided like that and nobody complains that he should be co-champion there because he was in a sense "undefeated" or played just as good. These were simply the rules beforehand and both players knew it.

Another point I'd like to make is that in this Armageddon game white got 6:00 vs 4:30 but black had draw odds. Given that time edge I find it rather sad to complain about losing on time.

Finally no disrespect meant to Irina Krush. I simply do not agree with her on most points in this matter and I am fully aware that she would most likely crush me in a normal game, however that is irrelevant to my points being made here ;-)

regards,

Ingvar Johannesson
Iceland

Arthegall said:

"Irina knocked over a piece in the chaos. Anna manipulated the system to play on her opponent's time. One's an accident; one's a moral choice"

This is what i call "low cost" speach.

It takes humility and good sense to rectify a mistake.

Whatever else may be said, USCF loses because their "title" in this case is meaningless as a measure of which played better chess at the tournament. And I think Irina's right about what the process of earning the title reveals about you is more important than the title itself. Chess is a game. Character is real life.

I understand how Anna feels; the organizers awarded her the title. But in my book, stealing time is wrong; it's low; it's cheap. Irina knocked over a piece in the chaos. Anna manipulated the system to play on her opponent's time. One's an accident; one's a moral choice.

True, the organizers are at fault for allowing any of it to happen, and for putting the players in a situation where their character would be so sorely tested. Anna probably wouldn't have been tempted to steal time in a different venue. But Anna put (and I think still is putting) winning the title over sportsmanship.

 It's also true that Irina might be singing a different tune if the roles were reversed. Be that as it may. That fact has nothing to do with whether or not what she's saying is right.

 USCF should get these two women in a room and work out a solution behind closed doors. Everyone involved is a grown-up, and should be able to work out this situation like grown-ups.

If they do, it'll be a big victory for USCF; if they don't, it'll be a blight people won't soon forget.