Ushenina is an excellent player with a tremendous future ahead of her. Unfortunately, she will be remembered for this rather than any of her accomplishments unless she wins a major elite tournament such as Wijk Aan Zee.
She's already the world champion! Her name is now in the history of chess. Give me just half of that and I'll give you all my endgames for the rest of my life... 
I'll teach Ushenina how to mate. I can brag that I taught a GM something xD. I bet when she stormed away that she went to her computer and practiced it 10 times until she got it.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
I thought the women had a separate title... not that it makes much sense now that i think about it.
No, you're right, there is a WGM title. But some women are good enough to meet the GM norm and be rated a "full" Grandmaster, which is plainly the case here.
Or to put the same thing another way, she is a woman Grand Master, not a Woman Grand Master.
Hold on one second.
Women's world champion receive the GM title as award "for free". That's how Ushenina got her GM title. Her peak rating was 2502, but I don't think she did any GM norm so she's not a "real" GM. They gave her the title of GM only because she's female.
Second, as I said before if a woman plays only in segregated tournaments her rating is just nonsense because the standard in women's tournaments might be much, much lower.
Only women who deserve a title and recognition as chess players are those who play in "non-segregated" tournaments. Polgar, or Hou Yifan for example.
blueemu, if you look at the currently FIDE list of the strongest women, it's clear that most of them don't deserve the GM title. Their ratings are just too low and with few exceptions they come from playing in segregated events.
There's even a GM with a rating of 2389.
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=1004786
Neither was Bobby Fischer, by that standard. He also got his GM title "for free", without making the required GM norms. He was awarded the GM title after qualifying for the Candidates, per the 1953 FIDE rules.
Ouch - bet she never messes that up again.
This is why I disagree with the stance taken by some Authors when writing a book on Endgames. The ending is not that hard to learn. It's easy to forget too, and it does require the player to refresh their memory from time to time.
Extract from "Silman's (Almost) Complete Endgame Course" (I left the chapter title in so people could locate the passage for themselves.)
A player might only get this situation once in a lifetime, but how painful not to be able to play it if you do?
Btw, I "defended" this endgame this year
I wanted to resign at first, but I was curious whether opponent knew. He didn't and after some moves he claimed a draw.
On move 85. White missed Ne7 cutting the king off from escape via g6, and fell to pieces after that.
I feel awful for her. She should have known how to mate.
I think it is unacceptable for a WGM not to win that endgame. Period.
I don't care if it doesn't come up too often.
I mean, these people play chess all day long for years and years. Even I have learned this endgame in the position trainer. If I can do it under pressure, maybe not. But I am an amateur.
I think it is unacceptable for a WGM not to win that endgame. Period.
What does it mean that you find this "unacceptable"? Do you want to punish Ushenina more than she has already been punished?
And what about those male GMs, Lilienthal and Epishin, who also couldn't mate with B+N vs a lone king? Should they also be punished?
"What's going unsaid is how well she played to reach that position. She played with confidence and fully deserved the win."
Well, if she could only reach the bishop and knight vs king endgame, then she only deserved to win if she achieved the mate (what good is winning material if you can't incorporate that into the only thing in chess that counts -- mate?). You deserve what you can achieve. If she wanted the win, then either she should have won bishop and knight, or converted her advantage earlier in the game into a position that she knew well enough that she would be able to achieve a mate (and then, of course, actually execute that mate). To win you have to achieve all of the tasks in front of you -- you can't just refuse to do one of them then make an appeal.
With that said, that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with not winning a chess game sometimes. Obviously she gets her GM title from a lot of chess ability, so for every position like this that she happens not to know, she knows dozens of other positions very well. In short it wouldn't be at all fair to judge her based on one isolated incident.
The WGM seems to have some idea what she was doing. It's possible she had knowledge of it and forgot.
She's a GM not WGM, that's why people are making such a big deal out of this.
I thought the women had a separate title... not that it makes much sense now that i think about it.
No, you're right, there is a WGM title. But some women are good enough to meet the GM norm and be rated a "full" Grandmaster, which is plainly the case here.
Or to put the same thing another way, she is a woman Grand Master, not a Woman Grand Master.
Hold on one second.
Women's world champion receive the GM title as award "for free". That's how Ushenina got her GM title. Her peak rating was 2502, but I don't think she did any GM norm so she's not a "real" GM.
I did not know that! Thank you.
Hold on one second.
Women's world champion receive the GM title as award "for free". That's how Ushenina got her GM title. Her peak rating was 2502, but I don't think she did any GM norm so she's not a "real" GM. They gave her the title of GM only because she's female.
Second, as I said before if a woman plays only in segregated tournaments her rating is just nonsense because the standard in women's tournaments might be much, much lower.
Only women who deserve a title and recognition as chess players are those who play in "non-segregated" tournaments. Polgar, or Hou Yifan for example.
blueemu, if you look at the currently FIDE list of the strongest women, it's clear that most of them don't deserve the GM title. Their ratings are just too low and with few exceptions they come from playing in segregated events.
There's even a GM with a rating of 2389.
Her GM title hasn't been "for free". Winning the FIDE women championship knockout is great achievement, definitely higher than ordinary GM norm.
Also I would like to see people not back up their arguments about player's strength on ratings. According to Arpad Elo, ratings shouldn't serve that purpose. Ratings are merely statistical tool.
I am glad I just mastered the mate today!
How do you feel about Fischer's bogus GM title?
Baloney. If winning the FIDE women's title was really a greater achievement than the usual GM norm process, she would be turning in GM norms regularly - since she is better than that, right?
It makes no sense to assert this. All these automatic titles for Women's, Senior, and Junior champions are bogus. It is a great achievement to win any of those titles, but it is NOT the same as fulfilling the normal requirements.
She would have if she had played in rated men's tournaments enough.
I am a lot more skeptical about GM titles achieved with ordinary norm processes. There are a lot of pre-arranged results, bribery and even bogus tournaments also happened.
I am glad I just mastered the mate today!
Congrats. It pays off.
How do you feel about Fischer's bogus GM title?
I assume Fischer cleared the norms during his career.
So in the end him having the title is ok, but I agree with Estragon, those titles are worth less then getting a GM title the "normal" way.
Agonizing situation.