06 World Open Concludes

Final two rounds today. Feel free to post updates if you're watching live. Kamsky squeezed Milov until he popped and now shares the lead on 6/7 with Milov and Joel "Jersey Boyo" Benjamin, who made a bid for an immortal game against Stripunsky. He sacrificed half a box of pieces and although Stripunsky fought back to at least equalize, Benjamin eventually won the day. According to the score at the Monroi site White missed a mate in two on move 24, which seems rather unlikely. 23..Kg8 must have been the move. (?) The rusty steel trap that is my memory coughs up Benjamin-Bartholomew from the 2003 World Open. Joel played the old double bishop sacrifice but there just wasn't a win, something he was lamenting in the halls long after the game. Games below.

The old rivalry Kamsky-Benjamin is a forced pairing in the morning round. A baker's dozen are chasing with 5.5 so as usual it's going to be down to tiebreaks unless one of the leaders wins twice today. Anyone know what the attendance-adjusted first prize is going to be? Ben Finegold is blogging (of course) the participation of the Fightin' Finegolds. Kelly won yesterday is now ahead of GM Rohde. Ben beat Yoshiharu Habu, the famous (well, in some places) Shogi player.

Benjamin - Stripunsky [B22]

34th Annual WORLD OPEN Philadelphia, 2006

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bc4 d6 6.d4 cxd4 7.cxd4 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Re1 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nb6 11.Bd3 Na6 12.Qe2 Nc5 13.Bc2 Nd5 14.Rd1 Bd7 15.Nbd2 Nb4 16.Bb1 Qa5 17.Ne4 Qa6 18.Qe3 Qc6 19.Nd4 Qc7 20.Nf6+ Bxf6 21.exf6 Nd5 22.Bxh7+ Kxh7 23.Qh3+ Kg6 24.fxg7 Kxg7 25.Qg4+ Kh8 26.Qh4+ Kg8 27.Qg4+ Kh8 28.Qh4+ Kg8 29.Qg5+ Kh8 30.Qh5+ Kg8 31.Qg5+ Kh8 32.Qh6+ Kg8 33.Nf3 Ne4 34.Ng5 Nef6 35.Rxd5 exd5 36.Qxf6 Qc2 37.Be3 Qg6 38.Qd4 Rfe8 39.h3 Bc6 40.Rc1 f6 41.Nf3 Re4 42.Qd3 d4 43.Bf4 Rae8 44.Kh2 Qf5 45.Bg3 Kg7 46.Qa3 Rf4 47.Nh4 Rxh4 48.Bxh4 d3 49.Qd6 d2 50.Qxd2 Qe4 51.f4 Qe2 52.Rc2 Qe4 53.Rc3 Kf7 54.Qf2 Rh8 55.Bg3 Qf5 56.Re3 a5 57.a3 a4 58.Qe2 Rd8 59.Re7+ Kf8 60.Rc7 Re8 61.Qd2 Kg8 62.Bh4 Bd5 63.Qf2 Qg6 64.f5 Qh6 65.Qd4 Re5 66.Rd7 Bf7 67.Rd8+ Kh7 68.Rd7 Kg8 69.Qg4+ Kf8 70.Rxb7 Bd5 71.Rb8+ Ke7 72.Qb4+ Kf7 73.Qg4 Ke7 74.Bf2 Re4 75.Qg3 Qf4 76.Bc5+ Kd7 77.Qxf4 Rxf4 78.g4 Rc4 79.Be3 Kd6 80.Kg3 Rc2 81.Rd8+ Kc6 82.Rc8+ 1-0

Benjamin,Joel (2589) - Bartholomew,J (2300) [B01]

31st World Open Philadelphia USA (2), 01.07.2003

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.d3 c6 6.Bd2 Qc7 7.Qe2 Nbd7 8.a4 e6 9.Nf3 Bb4 10.0-0 0-0 11.d4 b6 12.Bd3 a5 13.Rfe1 Bb7 14.Ne5 Bxc3 15.Bxc3 c5 16.Nxd7 Nxd7 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Bxh7+ Kxh7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.Bxg7 Kxg7 21.Qg5+ Kh8 22.Qh5+ Kg7 23.Qg5+ Kh8 24.Qh6+ Kg8 25.Ra3 f5 26.Rg3+ Qxg3 27.hxg3 Rad8 28.Qg6+ Kh8 29.Qh6+ Kg8 30.Qg6+ Kh8 31.g4 Rd7 32.Re3 Rg7 33.Qh6+ Kg8 34.g5 f4 35.Re5 Rh7 36.Qg6+ Rg7 37.Qh6 Rh7 38.Qg6+ Rg7 39.Qh6 Rh7 40.Qg6+ Rg7 ½-½

Comments

Finegold drew against the Shogi player.
Posted by: Zakki at July 4, 2006 06:43

I hope that Goichberg will in the future be able to keep his web site up to date for the open section.

Monroi did not carry the round 6 game for Milov or for Kamsky. they did have the battle for round 7.

It is a new day and the final day and we do not have the results posted for the open section and the games have started for round 8.

But it is much better than in the past. If Goichberg wants this to be a World Class Tournament then he must post results as the tournament progresses at least in the open class and at minimum before the games start on the final day.

I hope Bill is doing a better job of running the USCF than his own biggest tournament. well he has only had 33 practice runs of this for the 34th World Open. maybe he needed 34 practice runs.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 10:08

Well Ben Finegold has some results posted. Thanks Ben you win the gold star for today. Mig missed. he listed only 2 people at first place and there are 3. he also neglected to post any other names. my my. Mig wins only the silver star today.

here is Ben Finegolds posting on his blog.

Here are standings after 7 rounds:

1-3 Kamsky, Milov, Benjamin 6-1
4-16 Chanda, Nakamura, Yudasin, Stocek, Bo Hansen, Wojtkiewicz, Akobian, Kachieshvili, Ganguly, Browne, Yusupov, Ehlvest, Vescovi 5.5-1.5
17-31 Stripunsky, Moissenko, Izoria, Perelshteyn, Fishbein, Sharavdorj, Ibragimov, Shabalov, A. Ivanov, Cordova, Friedel, Becerra, Fedorowicz, Gulamali, Varshavsky 5-2
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 10:13

So what is the deal with this Eugene Varshavsky fellow in the Open section. After seven rounds, he has 5.0/7 having defeated three FMs (two have 3 IM norms) and last night he beat GM Smirin. This guy is rated 2169 USCF and hasn't done anything spectacular except win the expert section in 2005 Foxwoods.

What especially troubles me is that the alleged moves of the Smirin-Varshavsky game match Fritz 9 extremely well. In fact, it is a perfect match for long stretches, including the final 25 moves. Is this guy cheating or just darn good!?

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 4, 2006 14:10

The monroi site is not responding. Does anyone know about the Kamsk game
Posted by: jojo at July 4, 2006 14:14

Smirin-Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2 Qxd4 34. Nxd4 Be4 35. g3 Re8 36. Rc1 g5 37. f5 Rxe5 38. gxh4 gxh4 39. Re2 Ree7 40. Rf2 Rc7 41. Rcf1 Rf6 42. Rf4 Rg7 43. R1f2 Kf7 44. Rxh4 Ke7 45. Rg4 Rgf7 46. Kg3 Bxf5 47. Rgf4 Bd7 48. Re2+ Kd6 49. Rh4 Rg7+ 50. Kh2 Rg5 51. Rd2 h5 52. Re2 Rf1 53. Rd2 Be8 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ 55. Kxg2 Rd1 56. Kf2 Rd3 57.
Ke2 Bg6 1-0
Posted by: fpawn at July 4, 2006 14:14

Shouldn't that be 0-1, fpawn?
Posted by: Jonathan Berry at July 4, 2006 14:34

Watching the games on ICC today, LarryC related a tory about Varshevsky. Said that after the Smirin game, he wouldn't engage in postmortemn. Then during the morning round today, he was asked to talk to Goich and then immediately retired to the rest room for some 45 mins. Once they got him, out, they searched him, found nothing, and went back to his game. He apparently then quickly lost.

Cheater? Maybe, but one could argue that being rousted in the middle of your game could lead to blunders.
Posted by: Dondo at July 4, 2006 15:22

First prize ought to be between $33K and $35K (assuming a solo winner). Not sure what it will be exactly.
Posted by: Daniel at July 4, 2006 15:23

I read something curious on USCF's website:

"A notable absence in the tournament [World Open] is U.S. Champion Alexander Onischuk, who even came to the tournament on Friday with his wife, Olga. At the last moment, he decided not to play, because he didn't want to carry a chess board and pieces to the game each round. He also wanted to relax and explore the great city of Philadelphia. In the interests of fostering chess professionalism, he suggests providing boards and clocks for the top ten boards in major Opens.(In Europe boards and clocks are usually provided for all players.) Or, if that doesn't work out, any chess caddies avaliable?"

It's probably good that Onischuk did not go, to let others have a chance at the money. But if that's not the reason he didn't play, then I just can't help but feel that a board and clock would be provided for him. Then again I don't know what chess tournaments are like.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 4, 2006 16:08

results of Eugene Varshavsky are rather surprising. I played him at the National Open and he put up no resistance at all. I thought he was a "floor" master. But stranger things have happened. Even an idiot like me had a good World Open once upon a time.
Posted by: fluffy at July 4, 2006 17:54

Round 8 the Kamsky game was a draw. round 9 he took a fast draw. leaving the way open for Milov or Benjamin to win their last round game and take first place.

Goichberg's web site is way out of date. rediculous. Game 9 some people are finished and they are sitting with game 5 results 2 days old.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 18:52

I am forced to past results together.

Kacheishvili and Yudasin also were tied going into round 9 with Kamsky, Milov and benjamin.

so far both Kamsky and Yudasin have taken draws so end with 7.0 points.

that leaves
Milov, Benjamin, and Kacheishvili in postion to take first place with a win. with the big prize money I expect them to fight for a win.

There were many people with 6 points going into the final round who with a win would tie with Kamsky at 7 points.

there was a big field of GM's this year.
Posted by: tommy at July 4, 2006 18:59

Thanks for the star, tommy, but you can't count so no stars for you. I gave all three leaders.
Posted by: Mig at July 4, 2006 23:10

I have been told Varshavsky was removed from the tournament for cheating. Apparently it is a huge story there in Philly. No details, though.
Posted by: John Fernandez at July 4, 2006 23:12

I was one of Eugene Varshavsky's victims at this year's National Open. On the White side of a Najdorf, he played 6.Be3, 7.f3, but then Be2 and O-O. Eager to "punish" him, I over-extended on the Queenside and he squashed me like a bug. I am a weak master (USCF 2320). There was nothing in the game to suggest anything suspicious (you could argue there was no need considering how the game went).

His 2200 "floor" (he's still a USCF expert) was due to his earlier winning the Expert section of Foxwoods. He has been forced to play in Open secitons, with lackluster results, but he seemed happy with how the National Open went (not overly impressive, but indicating to him he could play in such sections). A little confidence can certainly help one's play.

I enjoyed watching his 5th round World Open game (Monroi) against Bartholomew (about 2400): Varshavsky dropped a pawn in the opening, played rather natural moves (maybe Fritz agrees, but my guess is such moves would be played by most players), and Bartholomew tangled up his pieces.

In the Smirnin game, maybe Smirnin overlooked ...g5 - which you don't necessarily need a computer to find, but a non-obvious move. Even after that, I wonder if Smirnin's play was the best (perhaps I am too weak to understand, but I wish GM's played that way against me). Were Varshavsky's moves so hard to find?

I am quite curious what actual evidence of alleged "cheating" anyone found. I certainly don't believe his results are so impossible - the possibility of such results is what keeps me playing. Or will we be accused of cheating if we ever achieve them?

-ron kensek
Posted by: ronald kensek at July 4, 2006 23:47

Kazim Gulamali (2276 USCF) appears to have tied for first at World Open. No, not first U2300. I mean first in the whole enchilada. It looks like a 10 or 11 way tie including: Kamsky, Milov, Yudasin, Kacheishvili, Benjamin, Ibragimov, Ehlvest, Ivanov, Yusupov, Gulamali and possibly one other. By my calculations that comes to about $6500 before taxes.

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 5, 2006 00:05

Any more word on Varshavsky? I assume that he was caught with some sort of cheating device, especially if his preformance itself was credible.
Posted by: Daniel at July 5, 2006 00:23

I have met Kazim Gulamali. He normally plays tournaments at the very tough Atlanta Chess Center. Not only are the players there tough to play but also the environment. It is very small and is upstairs in an old not well ventilated building. In the heat and humidity of Georgia you can imagine how it is. I am probably a 1400 player and set fritz 9 to the unleashed setting and the game I played was = until move 35 when i made a terrible blunder. Everyone can have a good tournament once in a while no need to blast others in print until you have more evidence that was has been shown.
Posted by: Glenn at July 5, 2006 00:35

I faced Varshavsky at the National open too. I'm only a 1921 player and not hard to beat of course. He won, but I can't personally imagine him beating titled players with what he showed at the table against me. Varshavsky arrived late, took a lot of time anyway for his first few moves (which were extremely bizarre). I figured he was either high or acting weird on purpose..playing mind games with me. It was 106 degrees in Vegas that day, but he was wearing a heavy flannel shirt- jacket top with the sleeves buttoned down throughout the game. Strange? Hey, maybe air conditioning doesn't agree with him. He'd make a great poker player; his face was frozen in place and he sat there like a statue. My personal opinion is that he's one of the wackiest people I've faced out of several hundred games over the years. BUT! I hope he's not being singled out for being "weird" or lacking social skills (lord knows he's got a lot of company in the chess community!). If there's evidence against him though, I hope he's booted out of organized chess.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 5, 2006 01:23

Probably the strangest chess player of all time is Ivanchuk, and he has been 2700+ for ages.
Posted by: Leto at July 5, 2006 03:09

The final standings show Gulamali on 6.0 points, not 7.0. He lost in the last round to Moiseenko. Gulamali appears to have played a successful "Swiss Gambit", having lost his first two games and gotten (relatively) easier pairings as a result.
Posted by: Icepick at July 5, 2006 07:26

Was there another case of cheating at the end of the WO in the U2000 section? The section leader's opponents were all given half or full byes that completely changed the results.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 09:18

Assuming the truth of the above posts we have a low master:

a) beating a succession of much higher-rated players

b) matching Fritz move-for-move for 25 moves

c) taking a 45 minute mid-game bathroom break.

d) avoiding a summons from the tournament director

The "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is too high for a chess tournament cheating accusation. By the "more likely than not" standard the man's guilty of cheating.

By this standard a low-rated player could safely beat a string of higher-rated players and match Fritz (bizarre computer-moves excepted) as long as he doesn't ditch the tournament director, hang out in the men's room for long stretches, or pay too much attention to a gesturing spectator.
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 09:25

I have done audio interviews with Yoshiru Habu, 13-year old expert Jimmy Canty, Varuzhan Akobian and Emory Tate. I also have a bit of Tate's animated analysis in his win over Columbia's Alonso Zapata. Should be on The Chess Drum soon.

Kazim Gulamali is quite a talent but it best know for being the world's strongest bughouse player. He is "Stanley" on the ICC. I've known him since he was seven years old and is truly a remarkable young man. He scored 6/9 and tied for first for under 2300 beating three GMs... Perelshteyn, Zaitshik and Garcia. It was the first time he had beaten a GM.

There was a case of a Rosenberg cheating in the under 2000 section.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 5, 2006 09:32

Daaim--

Have you any more details about the U2000 cheater?
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 09:46

Peace...

The story that I heard went something like this: Guy is playing incredibly strong chess, and then it is noticed that he has a "hearing aid", which he is concealing with headphones. To make a long story short, it was clear enough a situation that he was forfeited and his opponent, Chris Sevilla, became co-winner of the U2000 section.

In another interesting story, the U1800 section had a somewhat amusing finish on board 1. Going into the final round, one player had 7.5, while his opponent had 7, and one of them would get clear first. The player with 7.5 touched a pawn and then realized that moving it would cost him an entire Knight. As I was told by a friend who was playing in the section, the guy made a loud gasp and held that pawn suspended in the air for what seemed like five minutes! His opponent, realizing that he was now about to win a piece, got up and walked away, going to get a glass of water or somesuch. When he returned, the opponent had moved a different pawn! Needless to say, the gasp drew a lot of attention, as though any more needed to be focused on board 1 in a section of the World Open, and there were WAAAAAAAAY too many witnesses for the guy to get away with it; some even started chuckling at the absurdity of it all. The Knight was lost, and then the game.

Yes, it was an interesting tournament, filled with the customary founded and unfounded accusations of cheating, quick draws at the end of the tournament, and me hanging my queen in one move in a winning position, so I guess there was nothing out of the ordinary. There are more stories to be told, but those will come at a later point.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 10:12

Well, looks like I was dead wrong about Gulamali having won the last game. Go ahead, pillage me. At least Gulamali still ended up sharing top U2300 honors with the Australian kid Moulthun Ly. Not too shabby I would think.

Does anyone have a list of norms?

Michael Aigner
Posted by: fpawn at July 5, 2006 11:15

Before we prosecute this guy, know this: He has been training with a 2300 rated master. The same master who has helped Jimmy Canty gain 400 rating points in a little over a year.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 11:15

TW

who are you talking about when you say.

before we prosecute this guy.

who is this guy.

thanks for clearing it up for me.
Posted by: tommy at July 5, 2006 11:55

The guy accused of cheating in the U2000 section.
Posted by: TW at July 5, 2006 12:01

What's the word on Yusupov's last round game? Was it a draw or a win for him? Lots of confusion over this last night on ICC.
Posted by: anonymous coward at July 5, 2006 12:04

The Fritz match is really the only serious evidence here. Somebody starts playing better--not impossible or even unlikely. Somebody avoids a tournament director--well, we have all done things like that. Somebody takes a 45 minute midgame bathroom break after which he is found to have no equipment on him and loses-- the stress of an impending possible interrogation by tournament director can cause anybody to lose or to have a bout of diarrhea.

Anybody try to Fritz other Varshavsky games from the tournament? It is unlikely he would subject himself to such risk for just one game. How about non-Varshavsky games? (the point of that is to see how often we actually make the same moves the computer would do at such a level)

The "more likely than not" is way too low a standard to use here if we are talking about taking any permanent action aganist the man, such as removing him from USCF or banning him from competitive chess. It is not too low if we are talking about stuff like disqualifying him for violating tournament rules (by avoidiing meeting with t.d., taking a long bathroom break) and subjecting him to additional scrutiny in future tournaments.
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at July 5, 2006 12:32

AC, according to the World Open website, Yusupov did in fact DRAW his last round game. However, the Monroi site still shows the same final position as last night, which is the same as the position last night on ICC. I'm going to stick with the hypothesis that there is a problem with the game-score, at least until someone can show a forced draw in the (current) final position.
Posted by: Icepick at July 5, 2006 12:51

A super long bathroom break doesn't indicate cheating, or even contribute very much to the argument. Think about it: would it really take 45 minutes to plug in the position on pocket fritz and commit some quick analysis to memory?

Anybody who spends that much time in the bathroom is either very constipated or doing dope. And by dope, I mean the kind that would make 45 minutes "speed" by very fast.
Posted by: Chris Anderson at July 5, 2006 12:53

Peace...

Well, Yuriy, I believe that if the guy's "hearing aid" was actually legitimate, then it would certainly have behooved him to provide evidence of this, such as a doctor's evaluation. At the very least, the situation would have possibly progressed with his earnings being held until evidence of legitimacy was received; instead, he was forfeited and all was lost. Someone who was guilty of nothing surely should put up more of a fight than he did.

How long did he have this "hearing aid"? How bad is his hearing, that he should have this hidden transmitter in order to be able to understand what people are saying? Why the unusual step of covering a "hearing aid" with headphones? These are questions to which answers must be found, and the answers apparently were not so great.

Finally, TW, simply stating that someone studied with a strong player is not a great way to successfully claim that results are legitimate. People do not suddenly become mighty just because they study with a stronger player. Granted, people do improve, but a coach is merely another tool for improvement, and so there is no logical parallel between Canty's improvement and this player's "improvement" unless they both have similar talent. It is worth noting that other players in the section also have coaches, and coaches who are much stronger and more accomplished, as well; clearly, the merits of one's coach are not sufficient to nullify suspicion when one is caught with a foreign device and cannot adequately explain its purpose.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 12:53

Peace...

Chris, I believe you have the details mixed up. What I heard while I was at my board waiting for the round to start was that Goichberg had requested to speak with the guy, at which point he made off for the restroom for this long "break" before the round even started. It was not a case of going to the restroom to look up Fritz lines, because there was no game to analyze at that point. When the director asks to speak with you and you immediately run away for close to an hour, I should say that it should reasonably be expected that no direct evidence will be found. Supposedly, the guy also had a "lucky hat" that no longer existed when he returned to his board and subsequently lost.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 13:12

Maliq,
I never stated that the guy didn't cheat. I have no reason to attempt to "successfully claim his results are legitimate". I know (and have played)Steve and Jimmy (and his dad)and they've both gotten very strong, very rapidly. Period.
My point was don't prosecute the man without knowing all the facts. I dont know if Steve has bad hearing or not. I do know that he uses headphones all the time. And it not like he was an 1800 winning an U2000 section. His rating is 1974!
Posted by: Tony at July 5, 2006 13:26

Peace...

TW, I understand your point. What I mean to imply is that his results were suspicious not because he was doing well, but because he could not adequately account for the earpiece. For what it is worth, holding a rating of 1974 in an U2000 tournament at World Open does not even come close to making one a favorite. I swear that the U2200 tournament was being played in two sections with the number of experts who were playing U2000. If one truly is 1974, the seas are likely to get quite rough toward the tail end of the tournament, something that will continue to happen as long as the rules that are supposed to discourage sandbagging remain so lax.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 14:02

Maliq,

There is a problem with using the term "guy". Namely that I could be talking about one "guy", Varshavsky, who is 2169 and I assume not playing in the U2000 section, and you could be talking about another "guy" who according to your post has a hearing aid and who was playing in the U2000 section. If I understand Daaim's post correctly, the second "guy" is somebody named Rosenberg.

Yuriy
Posted by: Yuriy Kleyner at July 5, 2006 14:20

Peace...

Yuriy, sorry for the confusion; you are correct in that I should specify which case I am speaking of, being that there are multiple incidents. I was trying to address two seperate posts in one sitting and apparently did not do so great a job of it.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 5, 2006 15:00

it seems to me that the guy who disappeared for 45 minutes shows a lack of preparation in how to handle these problems.

I think the world open needs to work out the details better and probably have all the players sign some kind of agreement giving the tournament director certain powers concerning allegations of cheating.

if the tournament director walks into the playing all looking for someone that person should not be given the opportunity to disappear for 45 minutes. that is a big failing on the director's part. Maybe he does NOT want to catch anyone cheating because he sees that as bad for his future tournaments. he needs to see catching someone red handed as good for him.

If I go and pay some $400 entry plus hotel, spend lets say $1000 for the tournament total all expenses. then I want to know I have an honest chance to win or lose. that means all those cheating are caught quickly and efficiently and eliminated from playing.

of course for a good laugh all low rated chess players probably dream of what it would be like to win the world open. come in first and be a big hero. then go back home to the local club players and party as the greatest chess player. and have the club champion show us some respect. LOL.

club champions never seem to show respect.
Posted by: tommy at July 5, 2006 17:49

Tommy Dangerfield
Posted by: greg koster at July 5, 2006 18:19

There is a common scene at big tournaments - some people talking in non-English, "Russian," after observing their friends games. A good move or a good idea could make the difference of a win or a loss. Is this a form of cheating?
Posted by: Morning at July 5, 2006 18:49

Is Mark Rosenberg really the alleged cheater in the U2000 section? That can't be right. He seems to have finished in 3rd place and his pairings seem "intact". A different Rosenberg who is no longer on the crosstable perhaps?

http://www.worldopen.com/2006Results/20.html
Posted by: Puzzled Pawn at July 5, 2006 19:09

I was told his name is Steve Rosenberg, but there is merely what I was told.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 5, 2006 20:48

Here's the story I got, from the guy who caught thim. Before the final round started, Steve was already a suspected cheater because of computer matching. His 9th round opponent was told that he might be a cheater, and during the round, he asked steve to remove his headphones. Once his headphones were removed, he started covering his ears. Then, somebody followed him to the bathroom and caught him. He was removed from the charts, so Mark Rosenberg's score was legitimate.

He's from my home state of Michigan, and he has been playing since 1990 and has been hovering around 1800 for most of the time, with his peak rating being low 1900s in 1996. Then, he suddenly becomes superman. He wins the Michigan Open and Motor City Open U2000 sections with a perfect score. Then in January, he wins Michigan class A with a perfect score. I finished second in that tournament with a score of 4 out of 5, and he beat me in the 4th round.
Posted by: Gary Pratt at July 5, 2006 23:05

Gary Pratt, was Steve Rosenberg wearing headphones in Michigan Class A back in January?
Posted by: Leto at July 5, 2006 23:58

I found the tournament details for Michigan Class A from back in January. http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200601156161.2-12480813

Steve Rosenberg, rated 1895, beat the following opponents:

1. R Raymond Garrison rated 1880, this guy finished 11th scoring only 1.5/5

2. Stanley J Jarosz JR rated 1951, this guy finished 7th scoring 2.5/5, his other loss was to 10th place finisher Ramesh Boleni who is rated 1798 provisional 18.

3. Thomas L Tripplet rated 1832, this guy finished 6th scoring 3/5, his best win ratingwise was against 11th place finisher R Raymond Garrison.

4. Gary Pratt rated 1859, this guy finished 2nd scoring 4/5, his best win ratingwise was against 3rd place finisher Anthony Nichols.

5. Anthony Nichols rated 1956, this guy finished 3rd scoring 3/5, his best win ratingwise was against 4th place finisher William Rhee rated 1916.

The results themselves don't look suspicious to me. I'd like to see the games.

Here's the 2005 Motor City Open details:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200511274911.3-12480813

Again the results don't look suspicious to me. He was one of the highest rated players there.

Here's the 2005 Michigan Open reserve section:
http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200509054611.2-12480813

Again he was one of the highest rated players. In this tournament the highest rated player he beat was 5th place finisher Justin Aldrich who is rated 1747.

Looking at his rating history, his previous peak was 1934 in September of 1997.

So the results for these three tournaments don't look suspicious to me, i'd like to see some games.
Posted by: Leto at July 6, 2006 00:26

Perfect scores several tournaments in a row are a big red flag.

but if he won 3 tournaments with perfect scores then his rating should have shot way up high before the world open. How can he win 3 under 2000 tournaments with perfect scores and still play the under 2000 at the world open.

I would think that Goichberg could get some device to detect transmissions and use the divice to scan the playing halls and also check everyone out on the top boards.

it still seems almost impossible for a player to transmit his moves to a computer who then transmits back what to move. this is a very difficult thing to do.

and what happens when the player makes a mistake. he is suppose to move the pawn to a3 but instead moves the pawn to h3 by error. now the board and the computer are different.

cheating just does not seem possible.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 01:19

Regarding mr Varshavsky, go to uschess.org and type in his last name in MSA section, check out his rating history and the rest is clear.
Posted by: whocares at July 6, 2006 01:25

It seems like tournament directors now need to include something like a contract that players must sign saying that the organizer, at his/her discretion, has to power to remove anyone from the tournament at any time. That might be a bit rough, but as long as the organizer is reputable, tournaments might be able to attract even more people who might have been put off by the possibility of cheaters.
Posted by: g at July 6, 2006 01:45

A radio frequency (RF) sweep might or might not detect a cheater. First, there is a large amount of other wireless traffic (cellular, WIFI possibly, satellite, unlicensed bands, etc) over a very wide range of frequencies. Identifying the cheater's signal, which could be very narrow in frequency or very low in power, among all these others would be no small task. If a specific individual is suspected though, chances of catching them would be much improved by placing the receiver very close to the suspect so the signal would be quite strong. Another issue I can think of is that transmission and reception might not be continuous; instead, data would be exchanged in quick bursts (i.e. transmitting the opponent's move or receiving the suggested move would take only milliseconds). The communication could therefore be missed unless at the right frequency at the right time is examined.

Of course, there are very likely complete systems which have been designed to do exactly this task - find a specific signal in the presence of many others (organizations paranoid about being bugged, such as government or law enforcement, would own them).

Wouldn't the hardest part be transmitting moves back to the computer? You'd need a little keypad or button or something to enter them. Of course, if the player in question had a very tiny camera affixed to hat or ear maybe, or the game was known to the spectators in real time (by video, internet, or could be seen from the spectator's section) then a conspirator could just play out the game on a remote computer and relay the suggested moves back by voice (earpiece).

What other measures could be taken to prevent this sort of cheating rather than just looking for the patzer who's playing way above his rating? Holding tournaments in prison-like venues, banning all electronics, searching players upon entry --- none of these seems desirable.
Posted by: Cynical Gripe at July 6, 2006 02:05

Hi, just a few (not so?) random thoughts:

I can not really comment on whether Eugene cheated or not in Philly this year. Especially as I was too busy trying not to throw away more won positions to really follow anything else going on. I do remember being amused by his wearing a hooded jacket for most of the 2005 Foxwoods tournament. Hindsight being 20/20, many would now say "Oh, he must have been concealing a device back then!" While I allow for that possibilty, I am also afraid of the usual rush to judgment.

The most compelling evidence against Varshavsky is the alleged concordance of his moves with Fritz and Shredder. People have mentioned the Smirin game, and I heard some of the young masters at the tourney suggesting the same regarding his game against Bartholomew (incidentally, the great hope of Minne-snow-ta chess :)). The problem in making inferences comes when the position is a forcing one with a fairly narrow "tree of analysis". I haven't had the time to see either game, will do that before commenting further.

The suggestion that the TD should have the power to remove a player at his/her discretion would be fine, if this same World Open did not have a history of fairly wacky incidents, with some equally wacky (in my opinion) TD decisions. This incident easily comes to mind (with apologies to Hikaru): www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2002/NB_Akeem.html

Ok, let me stop here before I say something (else?) really stupid.

Cheers,
Okey
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 6, 2006 02:28

The problem with "cheating" in these tournaments is not the "cheaters" but the fact that low rated chess players can win $$$$$$$$$$$$ by beating players who also have not achieved great acumen at the game. Are there other games where non-professionals who are simply average players can win thousands of dollars by beating other non-pros? If weaker players have enormous prizes, there will always be people trying to cheat. I wonder how many people who were cheating or tried to cheat were not caught or suspected at all. Probably at least a few.

There is no way to stop all the cheating, unless you eliminate enormous prizes for the weaker players. The best players in the event (Kamsky, Milov, Ehlvest, Benjamin, etc etc) won ABOUT $6K, and almost every other player who won their respective sections won more. A friend of mine, who is 1300+ scored 7-2 in the U1400 (=3rd-7th) and won $1800+, MUCH more money then the GMs who got 6.5 and tied for 10th in the Open section. My friends performance was quite good, but I think the players who scored 6.5 in the Open section play chess SLIGHTLY better.

That being said, the World Open is the most fun tournament ever, and seeing all the GMs play, and play hard was great! The Open section is great, both for playing and watching. There was so much fun all the time, that I will try to go every year, notwithstanding all the cheating, yelling, cell phones, screaming, lights going off all the time.....I love that tournament!

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 03:00

I cant agree more with Ben, and i have been saying this for a long time especially in regards to the failed HB tournament: class players DO NOT need to make large sums of money. They are not chess proffesionals, unless they are sandbaggers like Varshavsky(check out his rating history and shall have no doubt).
When you are making a huge prize for weak players you are giving them an incentive to cheat or sandbag because some people will look at these prizes from a purely business point of view, i e how much money can i make if i do a,b, c and d. Amateurs are not afraid of losing face or disrespecting the game as some titled players might. I hope Goichberg is reading this because it is his model of a typical american swiss system with high prizes that are the target of cheaters and sandbaggers. And if you think this is a problem now just wait a few years, when the technology gets better, and this will become everyone's nightmare. I dont really see a solution, perhaps metal detectors and strip searches might work.... but do we really want to go throught that?!
Posted by: I at July 6, 2006 03:43

Until someone decides to do the hard work of actually finding real sponsorship for chess tournaments, large class prizes are here to stay. The reigning tournament model in the US is basically a redistribution of wealth, taking lots of good money from hundreds to thousands of amateurs to create prizes for the professionals. Why do the amatuers comply? Partly, maybe mostly, because the gambling instinct tells them there is a chance that once every 3-4 years, they can actually recoup their entry fee + travel + accomodation/hotel + feeding + unpaid time off work + etc , etc. Besides "special" tourneys like the US Open, which tend to draw a bit of a different crowd, there is usually a good correlation between the size of the prizes and number of people participating.

Am I biased here? More likely than not, since I am one of those amateurs. Do I empathize with the pros? Of course, everytime I play in a tournament, and watch a player rated 1160 win $10,000, it is hard not to.

I do take exception to this notion that amateurs are somehow more innately "wired" to cheat (forgive the pun). The law of numbers will determine that more cheats will be amateurs, but such folks will also exist in the pro ranks, albeit using different tools/methods.
Posted by: Okechukwu Iwu at July 6, 2006 07:21

Oke--

Thanks for the interesting Chessdrum link.

In this dust-up I'm on Nakamura's side and Goichberg's. A twelve-year-old at a chess tournaments should leave his bouncy-ball home and Naka acted reasonably enough in taking it away.

In these sorts of confrontations somebody's got to get in the first punch---and I'd prefer that the recipient be the ball-bouncer.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 07:57

It's quite opportune for an immigrant from an Eastern European nation to game the system. How many FIDE 2200+ players live there, and how easy is it to establish a 1200 rating in $20 tournaments, and selectively proceed as Varshavsky did, which is sandbag his way up to 2200, winning massive prizes at every level? That is, without even progging as Varshavsky might have?
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 6, 2006 08:01

For those of you advocating more discretionary power to TDs regarding tossing people out of tournaments--they already have it. It's quite clearly stated in the 5th Ed rulebook (and several editions before). It's simply not exercised very often, as most of us TDs are trained to be careful when using that power.

The problem is, while everything's fine and dandy in theory, how would *you* feel if you're having the tournament of your life, and an opponent charged you with cheating? Wouldn't you like your presumption of innocence, however well your moves corresponded with a computer?
Posted by: cynical at July 6, 2006 09:26

Let's not get paranoid about cheating and $$$$$$$ in chess. Comment's posted by guys like Der Strudel get on my nerves.I happen to be from Eastern Europe,never played chess there, moved to US, my rating has been between 1920 and 2090 for the last 5 years and ... whenever I lose to a 1800 guy I run into insinuation that it is sandbagging. Here is a few points worth keeping in mind:
1. If you think that your opponent is FIDE
master you can easily check this by going to
FIDE web side and looking at his rating
history. The link is http://www.fide.com
2. Class prizes are OK. Everybody has a chance
to be a winner. In a way,they provide
motivation to work on the game. If you think
that winning $2000 in U1400 is a big $$$$$$
I'm sorry for you.
3. A little math now, if over 256 players
compete in one class then taking into account
that draws are quite rare on this level, at
least one player will have perfect score
after 8 th round (256 = 2^8). Thus, it is
quite conceivable that the winner in 9 round
tournament will have 8 points or better.
Assuming the class is U2000 such score gives
perfomance rating over 2300. But it does not
indicates that the winner is FIDE master.
Just somebody had to win !
Posted by: Bogdan Wojcieszyk at July 6, 2006 09:47

I think the attitude that "lower" players should not be able to play for nice prizes is total rubbish. Why should the bulk of players, who are also actually paying entry fee, not be able to play for a big prize? If the GMs and IMs want to play for deeper payout then they should be required to pay and pay more than the "lower" players. This is how backgammon tournaments work. The masters pay anywhere from 5-10x as much as the amateurs and they only play for the money in their section. Seems reasonable to me.
Posted by: Mike at July 6, 2006 10:19

I agree with Ben Finegold that the world open is just a super tournament. it is a happening. it is an experience. it is very special.

you go down with 8 or 10 chess playing buddies and you get a couple of rooms. stay up all night playing blitz and then with a perfect score going into the final day you fall asleep at the board and lose the last 2 games getting nothing from the event. LOL.

you say next year it will be different. but next year it is all the same. sleeping on the floor. eating terrible. staying up all night. playing too much blitz. meeting all the other players and having a total blast. it is the greatest.

no one ever seems to win any money. yeh big deal one guy out of over 200 in his section gets a few bucks. he deserves it. if some guy who is low rated at chess did not walk off with a big check then where is our dream for next year. the low players pay the bills for the tournament. they deserve some small compensation.

Remember the lower rated players paid up to $400 for entry. the Grandmasters paid nothing for entry fee. and 9 GM's got $6000 each for $54,000. where did that $54,000 come from. of course it was paid for by the lower rated players.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 10:36

Tommy's right. Ben Finegold is cutting off his nose to spite his face. Without amateur support (high entry fees and prizes) Grandmasters in this country would have slim pickings indeed. Unless of course many of the Gm's have become arrogant enough to believe that amateurs would continue to pay high entry fees with the vast majority of the money going to the top boards. The only other alternative is corporate sponsorship and we all know what that amounts to.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 11:35

As a close friend of Steve Rosenberg's, I have read these posts with great interest. He seems to be taking a beating here. Essentially, people have assumed that Steve cheated because his results are too good! Itis impossible to play this well, so he must be cheating! Looking for the flimsiest proof to justify there gut feeling, people are pointing to the earpiece and lack of cooperation when confronted by the TD's as evidence.

I am not buying it, and I don't believe it. Steve did not cheat.

I was not at the World Open, and did not witness the events as they unfolded in the U2000 section. But I know Steve quite well and would like to speak to his chess play and personal character.

Regarding Steve's chess strength, Steve has indeed been on a remarkable run. As others noted, prior to the World Open, Steve recorded 19 wins in a row. He went 7-0 at the Michigan Reserve (U1800). He then went 7-0 at the Motor City Open (U1800 section), followed by 5-0 at the Michigan Class (Class A section).

I was at all of these events, and witnessed many of the games live. I saw no reason to suspect cheating. Especially at the Motor City Open, which was played at sudden death time controls.

I have studied many of these games one-on-one with Steve. In a lesson type format, we reviewed the games and the reasoning behind his moves. The play in these games is entirely consistent with Steve. These are indeed his moves.

As for the games themselves, While Steve played well, these were not GM caliber performances. There are errors in all phases in the game. For example, his openings do not follow theory, the middlegame strategy is questionable in places and endgame technique is sometimes lacking. Play is not perfect.

Recalling from memory, there were several games where Steve was either worse, or his opponent missed chances. For example,

In the Michigan Class, Jarosz was a clear pawn up in the endgame (though Steve had piece activity as compenstaion) before dropping a piece.
Also in the Michigan Class, Triplett was a clear pawn up before dropping a piece.

At the Motor City Open, his last round opponent (Jia I think) was two pawns up in the endgame before dropping a piece.

I would also add that Steve has been playing frequently on the USCL server. His quick rating has jumped from about 1825 to 2050 in about a years time. His quick results are consistent with his slow push results. I did not go through the crosstables, but I believe he only lost two or three games in over a year, against mostly 1500-1900 competition.

Isn't it possible that the guy has improved his skill level, and made a jump in strength to approximately 2100 level?

Regarding the specific circumstances at the World Open, I can confirm that Steve does indeed wear a hearing aid. He has visited my family socially, and my wife and I both recall him wearing one.

On the headphones, he has played at the board with headphones for years and years. He was not using them to conceal anything.

A hearing aid is a receiver isn't it? What does that prove?

Assuming he was cheating, and the hearing aid was in fact a two-way recevier, how is he communicating with the computer or accomplice? You say he is getting moves in his ear by the receiver, but how are the moves going from the live board to the computer?

Of course, I don't know how it went down, but I can imagine Steve taking an in your face attitude as a response to being confronted by the TD's. To an outsider, I understand how not coopoerating with authority (not submitting to a search) would look like an act of guilt. But it certainly does not constitute proof.

And it fits with Steve's personality. In an argument, Steve is prone to taking a principled stand, and then not budging. Period.

Beyond the chess itself, and the specific circumstances, I don't believe Steve is the type of person who would cheat. As I mentioned before, Steve and I have been close friends for twenty years. He was my best man at my wedding. As a person, he demonstrates more principle and character than any person I have ever known. I would trust him with the lives of my family.

I just don't believe it. But don't go by me. I challenge you to judge for yourself, by looking at the chess itself.

These game scores below are available from the Michigan Chess website. (http://www.michess.org/features/2006Jan_2005MichOpRes.shtml). It covers some games from the Michigan Reserve. Do these moves look like Fritz or Shredder to you?

Paul Kane (1619)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
4-day, Round 2
Budapest, A51

Notes by Tim McGrew

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5!

Yes, we award punctuation for fighting spirit! I was just recommending this defense to someone at the Michigan Amateur in October.

3.Nc3?!

White immediately steps off of the theoretically approved path and finds himself fighting to show that he has equality. No one should shelve the game at this point as irrelevant: when you play unusual openings with a logical basis, your opponent will often sidestep the main lines either through ignorance or through trepidation. Either way, what happens here is of great practical relevance.

3...exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qd1 Be7

This is very nearly the only move Black makes in this game that I don’t think is strongest. Here 5...Bb4!? is positionally threatening. White will not want to have doubled, isolated c-pawns, but that means he must take a tempo out to do something relatively passive like 6.Bd2 Black’s pieces will all find good squares and White is left with the puzzle of how to develop effectively. Alternatively, 5...Bc5 looks active and sets a small trap: 6.Bg5? Bxf2+ 7.Kxf2 Ng4+ 8.Ke1 Qxg5-+

6.Nf3 d6 7.e3 Bg4 8.Be2 0-0 9.b3 Re8 10.Bb2 Qd7 11.Qc2 Bf5

Somewhere around here, White must have sensed that the game was not under his control. The pawn at c4 is supposed to confer a space advantage, but it seems to be posing no particular difficulties for Black. So White reaches for his bishop to brush away the pesky attack.

12.Bd3??

When I make a move like this, I usually sense what went wrong as my hand leaves the piece. On the other hand, 12.e4 isn’t such a tremendous idea either. Black can either back up with 12...Bg6 and torment the e-pawn or else lash out with 12...Nxe4!? when things get hot on the e-file: 13.Nxe4 Bxe4 14.Qxe4 Bf6! 15.Qb1 (15.Qc2 Nb4 16.Qd2 Bxb2 17.Qxb2?? Nd3+-+ picks up the queen at a bargain price.) 15...Qe6! 16.Ng1 Nd4! 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 and White is losing the trapped rook on a1. A simplistic material count might leave one thinking that this is not so bad, but after 18.Qd1 Qf6! 19.Rb1 Qxf2+ 20.Kd2 Re4!-+ the truth becomes apparent: White’s pieces are badly tangled up and Black’s other rook will join the attack presently.

12...Nb4!

Ouch! That hurts!

13.Qd2

From the standpoint of offering resistance, it would have been better to sacrifice the queen for two minor pieces with 13.Bxf5 Nxc2+ 14.Bxc2 White is, of course, still losing. But he has more pieces on the board than Black does (six to five) and his king is safe for the time being. It is very hard to make a decision like this over the board, but every strong player develops a sense of which lost positions offer even minimal swindle potential and which do not. This is something you cannot learn from Fritz!

13...Nxd3+

From now on Black has a happy choice of natural moves, all of them strong.

14.Ke2 d5 15.Nd4 dxc4 16.Nxf5 Qxf5 17.bxc4 Rad8! 18.Kf1 Bc5 19.Nd1 Ne4! 20.Qe2 Nf4! 21.Qf3 Nd2+

The remainder of the moves are illegible on the scoresheet, but it’s a reasonable guess that the game finished something like this: 22.Ke1 [Or 22.Kg1 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qh3 24.exf4 Re1#] 22...Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qd3 24.Nc3 Ng2# (Editor Note: The final moves were confirmed to start with the following illegal move.)

22.Ke2 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qd3+ 24.Ke1 Qe2# 0-1

==============
Justin Aldrich (1762)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
3/4-day, Round 4
Vienna: Falkbeer (Three Knights), C28

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e5 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.a3 Be7 5.Nf3 d6 6.h3 0-0 7.d3 h6 8.0-0 a6 9.Nh2 Be6 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 d5 13.e5 Nd7 14.Qg4 Bc5+ 15.Kh1 Qe7 16.Rae1 g5 17.h4 h5 18.Qxg5+ Qxg5 19.Bxg5 Ndxe5 20.Rf6 Rxf6 21.Bxf6 Bd4 22.Bg5 Rf8 23.Be3 Rf5 24.Kg1 Bxe3+ 25.Rxe3 Nd4 26.Nf3 Ndxf3+ 27.gxf3 d4 28.Rxe5 Rxe5 29.Ne4 Rb5 30.b3 Rb6 31.Nf6+ Kf7 32.Nd7 Rb5 33.f4 Ke7 34.Ne5 Rc5 35.Nc4 b5 36.b4 Rc6 37.Nd2 Rxc2 38.Nb3 Rc3 39.Nxd4 Rxd3 40.Nc6+ Kf6 41.Ne5 Rxa3 42.Nd7+ Ke7 43.Nc5 Rc3 44.Nxa6 Rc6 45.Nc5 Rxc5 46.bxc5 Kd7 47.Kf2 Kc6 48.Ke3 Kxc5 49.Ke4 b4 50.Ke5 b3 51.Kxe6 b2 52.f5 b1Q 53.f6 Qe4+ 54.Kd7 Qxh4 55.f7 Qf6 56.Ke8 Qxf7+ 57.Kxf7 h4 0-1

==============
Rosenberg,Steve (1731)
James Canty Jr. (1690)
Réti: King’s Indian, A08

1.Nf3 e6 2.d3 d5 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.0-0 Nge7 6.e4 Ng6 7.Nc3 d4 8.Ne2 e5 9.h4 Bd6 10.h5 Nge7 11.h6 gxh6 12.Bxh6 Rg8 13.Qd2 Bg4 14.Nh2 Be6 15.f4 Qc7 16.f5 Bd7 17.Bg5 0-0-0 18.Ng4 Qa5 19.Qxa5 Nxa5 20.Nxe5 Be8 21.Bf6 Nac6 22.Nxc6 Bxc6 23.e5 Bxg2 24.Kxg2 Rde8 25.exd6 Nd5 26.Be7 Ne3+ 27.Kh3 Nxf1 28.Rxf1 Rg7 29.Nf4 h5 30.Nd5 Reg8 31.Rg1 h4 32.g4 1-0

==========
Douglas Fick II (1670)
Steve Rosenberg (1731)
Alekhine: Modern B05

Notes by Bill Calton (BC) and Tony Palmer (TP)

BC: Steve’s recipe for success - solid and opportunistic play. If you can cash in on your opponent’s mistakes while making no significant errors yourself, you too may go 7-0 in the Reserve. Simple chess.

1.e4 Nf6

TP: Alekhine’s Defense, where Black dares White to take over the center with pawns, only to play against White’s center anyway.

2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3

TP: A good approach, versus kicking the Nd5 with 4.c4.

4...Bg4 5.Bc4

BC: Innocuous. The bishop belongs on e2 in this system.

5...e6 6.h3 Bh5 7.0-0 Be7 8.Be2

BC: White decides the bishop should be on e2 after all. But this costs a tempo, and Black should be equal now.

TP: Retreating the bishop to break the pin - good strategy.

8...0-0 9.c4 Nb6 10.Nc3

TP: White must be careful now, since the Nb6 hits the c4-pawn and the only defender is the Be2. Watch what happens next.

10...Nc6

BC: Black is threatening ...dxe5.

11.Be3?

BC: Which White overlooks. 11.exd6 appears necessary, when play resembles one of the theoretical lines except that White’s bishop is on c1 instead of e3 (due to the earlier tempo loss Bf1-c4-e2). Black has more than enough play, but this is preferable to the game continuation. 11...cxd6 12.d5 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.dxe6 fxe6 15.Bg4 As an aside, with the bishop on e3, books consider this position better for White. However, FM David Levin argues otherwise on davidlevinchess.com.

TP: 11.b3 would defend the c4-pawn and prevent doubled pawns on the kingside.

11...Bxf3 12.gxf3?!

BC: 12.Bxf3 Nxc4 13.Bxc6 bxc6 preserves White’s pawn structure and offers some, though not enough, compensation for the pawn.

TP: 12.Bxf3 Nxc4 snatching a clear pawn.

12...dxe5 13.d5!?

TP: Advancing in the center, but the d5-pawn will become isolated and weak. 13.dxe5 might have been better, accepting loss of a pawn.

13...exd5 14.cxd5 Nd4!

TP: Centralization!

15.f4

TP: 15.Bxd4 exd4 16.Qxd4 Bf6 17.Qd2 Bxc3 18.Qxc3 Nxd5 and Black stands better.

15...Nxe2+ 16.Qxe2 exf4 17.Bxf4 Bg5!

BC: Black picks up another pawn while forcing favorable trades.

TP: Black is very patient about grabbing the d5-pawn.

18.Bxg5 Qxg5+ 19.Kh2 Nxd5 20.Nxd5 Qxd5

TP: Now Black is two pawns up, however this can be a tricky endgame with major pieces around.

21.Rfd1 Qe6

BC: Two pawns up, Black is happy to trade all day long.

22.Qd2 Rae8 23.Re1 Qf6 24.Rxe8

TP: 24.Rg1 keeping pieces on the board would improve. When down in pawns, trade pawns but not pieces.

24...Rxe8 25.Re1

TP: Same comment.

25...Rxe1 26.Qxe1 Qf4+ 27.Kg2 h6

BC: No back rank accidents.

28.Qe8+ Kh7 29.Qb8 Qg5+ 30.Kh2 Qe5+ 31.Kg2 Qxb2 32.Qxc7 Qxa2 33.Qxb7 a5

TP: Black has a won game.

34.Qe4+ g6 35.h4 h5

BC: With f7 safely protected, there will be no perpetual accidents either.

36.Kh3?

BC: White is lost in any case, but this makes it easy.

36...Qe6+ 0-1

TP: Alertly trading queens into a winning king and pawn endgame. Nice technique by Rosenberg.
Posted by: Bill Calton at July 6, 2006 12:23

At some point, I may decide to talk in some detail about both the Varshavsky and Rosenberg situations, as I worked the floor at the World Open and was heavily involved in both decisions. There's a lot of misinformation floating around, but in general, I think the correct decisions were made in both cases. I will say that the major differences between the two situations were (1) Varshavsky consented to searches and Rosenberg did not; and (2) No receiving device was found on Varshavsky, while one was found on Rosenberg.

For now, I want to address a couple of other comments about tournaments in general, because that's all I have time to do.

(1) Obviously, the class sections of CCA tournaments subsidize the Open sections. If the pros don't like that amateurs get to take home bigger checks, then they have two options. First, they could be more sponsor-friendly. (Watching a GM complain about computers in an interview after winning an Intel-sponsored tournament comes to mind.) Along those lines, they should also be more people-friendly. The truth is that many masters are snobbish - which is fine, as long as they don't outwardly display it. It's called "public relations" for a reason.

The other solution is for Open section participants to pay much higher entry fees, and have Open prizes come from Open entries. The problem is that the Open section would have to have entry fees around $1000-$1500 to offer similar prizes (and this doesn't factor in losing entries from lower masters not interested in dropping that kind of moolah).

(2) There are obviously no other tournaments like the World Open in terms of prize funds for class players (well, maybe the Chicago Open is closest). The World Open is so big, though, that cheating must be proactively addressed. For years, the perception has existed that cheating is clearly allowed at CCA events, and that nothing would be done for fear of legal repercussions. That perception has caused the CCA to take a lot of hits, both in print and by word of mouth - because, as anyone who has ever dealt with media will tell you, perception is reality.

I think that Bill Goichberg took a major step to reversing that perception by dealing with the Varshavsky and Rosenberg situations as he did. It should be clear now that, while tossing a player out of a tournament is a major step that no decent TD likes doing, the CCA is more than willing to aggressively investigate and respond to highly suspicious situations. Of course, this will also have to be filed with the USCF for possible membership action as well. Ultimately, I hope this helps to deter those considering cheating.

Also, this has started the discussion among CCA staff of how to secure CCA events in an ever-evolving world of wireless communication. This discussion, though clearly not concluded, can only benefit the CCA and large USA open events in general.
Posted by: Boyd Reed at July 6, 2006 13:12

Thanks for comming to his defense Bill. I have also been a close friend of Steve for close to 20 years, and I am convinced he did not, nor would he ever cheat in a chess tournament. Bill is correct that he is a principled person who would never submit to being searched without a search warrent. The possibility of winning a few thousand dollars is not enough money for him to abandom these principles, nor is it enough money to make him cheat at a chess tournament and defraud other enterents. This is a man who donates his time to be a head admin on Chess Live, dirrects in scholastic tournaments here in Michigan, and has sat on the Michigan Chess Association board of dirrectors. I was not at the World open, but I was at a few of the other tournaments that he recently won. At the Michigan Class championship, I sat at the next board 2 feet away for a few rounds, and can assure you there was nothing out of the ordinary.
I also analysed with him many of the games from those tournaments, and he articulated solid reasons for each of his moves, and a firm understanding of the positions. His improvement comes from many hours of study, work that most of us are not winning to invest into improving our games.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 6, 2006 13:25

Boyd,

Thank you for your comments. If you happen to be in on any of the CCA conversations about handling potential cheating, could you remind folks that some of the blocking devices available also affect electric wheelchairs and/or pacemakers?

As a wheelchair-dependent person, this issue has come up for me in other contexts, and people are always surprised at first. But it is a public safety issue, particularly for events/meetings held in hotels and other public venues.

It's also an issue with an international audience, where one can't be sure that warning signs will be read and understood.

regards,
duif
Posted by: Duif at July 6, 2006 13:34

Peace...

Bill, I understand your defense of your friend, but you must understand that saying someone has a confrontational nature is not grounds for dismissing what appears to be suspicious behavior. As I stated before, it should have been easy enough to confirm that the earpiece was legitimate if your friend wanted to do so. If his "confrontational nature" got in the way of him making use of this obvious defense, then he has nobody to blame for his plight but himself; the same holds true for one who is accused of committing a crime and refuses to provide an alibi.

Now, the matter of whether or not your friend cheated in the Michigan tournament is absolutely irrelevant; people brought it up as a minor inquiry because of the context of our conversation, but it never was a part of the case against him in Philly. On a related note, the games you provided are not pertinent to this argument; only games from the 2006 World Open are. We need to see games from the World Open, not games against 1600 players in a tournament that did not hold nearly the same high stakes.

In addition, your assumption that he should be in the clear if his moves do not match those chosen by computer programs is flawed. First, it is easy enough to choose from lines that are evaluated lower but nevertheless still favorable, in which case a person would not match the computer move-for-move. Second, one need not be using Shredder to win games in an U2000 section -- direct assistance from a strong expert is all that is needed to give good chances of success.

In closing, NOBODY assumed that he had to be cheating because he was playing well; most of us had never heard of this man prior to this weekend. It was believed that he was cheating because he was not able or not willing to adequately explain his behavior after people grew suspicious of this transmitter (and, allegedly, the fact that he covered his ears after being asked to remove his headphones). If he is innocent, then he has more than enough incentive to actually speak up for himself; if he chooses not to do so, then people may feel even more justified in assuming his guilt.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 13:42

Our records indicate that the person posting as "Maliq Soter" has been found to be annoying by 95.3% of readers to this blog. "Peace" is not a valid way start a conversation nor is "Hotep" a valid way to end one. Here in America and in all English-speaking nations, we use "Hello" and "Goodbye" or variations of thereof. Please update your records to reflect this modern usage.
Posted by: Chess Auditor at July 6, 2006 13:51

Im not commenting on any cheating allegations but Why is Varssavesky accused of sandbagging as suggested above? If you look at the MSA he was a class C player 10 years ago and then took a break from tournaments. If he is indeed honest, is it unheard of to improve that much during a hiatus?
Posted by: . at July 6, 2006 13:52

How did Steve get to Philly? He drove from Michigan? Long drive. Since we know he didn't fly, as he would have refused to take off his shoes or put himself through the airport metal detectors or his carry-ons through the scanner.

The point is, if indeed an innocent man has been punished, this is one time to hope that Goichberg did consult a lawyer before forfeiting him. Because this is one of those exceptions that seem to prove the rule: clearly things will work out best for everyone if the innocent man (if indeed he is innocent) who was punished lacks a means of redress.

We all give up some rights when we enter an organized competition (baseball league, golf tournament), or a profession (doctor, lawyer, financial planner). One of the main rights anyone gives up in return for the resulting benefits, is their right to refuse to cooperate with an official inquiry when there is suspicion of rule-breaking or cheating.

In this sense, the TDs who asked to search Mr. Rosenberg did in fact have the equivalent of a "search warrant", since they were conducting an official inquiry and it appears one or more of his opponents had complained.

Obviously no one would want people monitoring a private sporting activity to be required to ask the government for a warrant any time thay have to resolve a suspected cheating case.

Some here have accused me of trying to "turn chess tournaments into Guantanamo Bay" with my anti-cheating petition shown in my link below. In this instance, it seems that if someone argued it was OK for Mr. Rosenberg to never submit to being searched without a search warrant, then THAT PERSON would be "turning chess tournaments into Guantanamo Bay" -- i.e., inviting government intrusion into a private activity.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 13:52

Suppose I suddenly figure out how to beat GM and IM opponents with any sort of consistency. I wonder how long it will take for people to accuse me of cheating? For those who don't know me, I drive a power wheelchair and wear an unusual hearing aid. Oh, and I have a 2300 chess rating.

Michael Aigner

P.S. At least I've been around master sections long enough that people know me. I don't conceal my hearing aid and, although I wish I could, I can't conceal my wheelchair.
Posted by: fpawn at July 6, 2006 14:02

Comments by Boyd Reed, I guess, one World Open TD confused me even more. He says:
(1) Varshavsky consented to searches and Rosenberg did not
(2) No reciving device was found on Varshavsky while one was found on Rosenberg

Well, if Rosenberg refused to be searched how did you found a device on him? May be he just needs a hearing device? I would suggest that we show some constrain before accusing people in public of cheating. I hope that everybody understands that the burden of proof is on accuser in such case. I hope that nobody thinks that since Rosenberg played well, had a device in his ear and refused to be searched adds up to a proof that he was cheating.
Posted by: Bogdan Wojcieszyk at July 6, 2006 14:26

Cheaters will always be amoungst us, that's just a fact of life. If and when one is caught at a tournament what happens, a slap on the wrist and banishment from that particular tounament? Certainly not much of a deterrent to prevent it from happening again. I would not have a problem with a person who was caught, and the proof was beyond doubt, being banned from the USCF for life.

With technology becoming more and more sophistacted, harsher measures are needed to help keep this malevolent act in check. Joining the USCF and participating in tournaments is not a right, it's a priviledge and as such should be revoked when said circumstances prevail.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 16:04

Bogdan.

A lower-rated player makes a perfect score at a big tournament and refuses to let you examine the device in his ear. What would you do?

Competing in a chess tournament nowadays should imply consent to a reasonable search. "Let's have a look at that device in your ear" is reasonable. If a player refuses, the TD should forfeit him and the USCF should ban him for a good long time.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 16:15

**Before I begin, let me say that I was very hesitant to post this. I am not the type of person who would call out a tournament player - let alone an opponent - for cheating in such a public forum. However, I honestly feel that Eugene Varshavsky DID use outside assistance in several of his games (including mine) at the World Open. I will give my observations about his games and behavior during the tournament and leave the judgments to you**

I was paired with white against Varshavsky in round 5. I already knew who he was, as he had just defeated my good friend FM Robby Adamson in the previous round. I checked out the TWIC database to see if he had any recent games. He didn’t. This was not unusual for a player with no FIDE rating, so I just went to the tournament hall and played 1.e4 at the 6 PM start time.

The description of Varshavsky given by whiskeyrebel above seems almost identical to what I observed during the game:

“Varshavsky arrived late, took a lot of time anyway for his first few moves (which were extremely bizarre). I figured he was either high or acting weird on purpose..playing mind games with me. It was 106 degrees in Vegas that day, but he was wearing a heavy flannel shirt- jacket top with the sleeves buttoned down throughout the game. Strange? Hey, maybe air conditioning doesn't agree with him. He'd make a great poker player; his face was frozen in place and he sat there like a statue. My personal opinion is that he's one of the wackiest people I've faced out of several hundred games over the years.”

In our game, Varshavsky came to the board some 20 minutes late. He also took a lot of time in the opening – even on 4…dxc6. The only strange thing I noticed about his attire was the blue bucket hat he wore that drooped low around his ears. He wore the same hat against Adamson in round 4, Kacheishvili in round 6, and Smirin in round 7 before the TDs made him take it off. Varshavsky sat at the board the entire time, only getting up briefly after time control was reached. I never saw his eyes leave the board.

The game itself was one of the strangest I have ever played. Varshavsky gave up a pawn on move 14 in a very standard theoretical position (14…b5 is almost universally played). After I played 15.Nxc4, I expected to consolidate the extra pawn, trade pieces, and win in the endgame. However, Varshavsky suddenly put up surprisingly strong resistance. He began playing fast and I had a difficult time finding good squares for my pieces. I was particularly struck by the unpredictability of Varshavsky’s moves after move 14. I remember thinking to myself several times that it felt as though I was playing against a computer. I did not even consider moves like 26…Ne7, 33…Rg8, 41…Bxe8, and 49…b6 during the game. It was very frustrating.

Bartholomew - Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 c5 8. Nb3 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 Bg4 10. f3 Bd7 11. Bf4 O-O-O 12. Nc3 c4 13. Na5 Bc5+ 14. Kf1 Ne7 15. Nxc4 Be6 16. Nd2 h5 17. Nb3 Bc4+ 18. Ke1 Bg1 19. Ne2 Bb6 20. Nd2 Bf7 21. Bg3 Be3 22. Nf1 Bc5 23. Bf2 Bd6 24. h4 f5 25. exf5 Nxf5 26. Ne3 Ne7 27. Ng3 Rde8 28. Kf1 Rhf8 29. Kg1 Bg6 30. c3 Nc6 31. Nc4 Be7 32. Nf1 Bf7 33. Nce3 Rg8 34. Nd5 Bd8 35. Nf4 g5 36. hxg5 Bxg5 37. Nh3 Bh6 38. Ng3 Bg6 39. Re1 Ne5 40. Bd4 Nd3 41. Rxe8+ Bxe8 42. Nf5 Bf8 43. Nf2 Nxb2 44. Re1 Bg6 45. Ne7+ Bxe7 46. Rxe7 Re8 47. Rg7 Bb1 48. f4 Re1+ 49. Kh2 b6 50. Be5 c5 51. g4 Nc4 52. gxh5 Nxe5 53. fxe5 Rxe5 54. Rg8+ Kb7 55. Rh8 Bxa2 56. h6 Kc6 57. Nd3 Re7 58. h7 Rc7 59. Ne5+ Kb5 60. Kg3 Bb1 61. c4+ Ka5 0-1

Granted, my technique in this game was poor. However, I believe Varshavsky played at a level far above his actual strength following move 14.

I went on to finish with 5.5/9 in the tournament, but I followed Varshavsky’s games closely each round. His round 6 game against Kacheishvili started setting warning bells off in my head. I couldn’t locate the game score, but imagine a closed Sicilian position with white having pawns on e4 and d3, a knight on c3, and bishops on c4 and c1. Black has pawns on e6 and d6, a knight on e7 and a queen on d8. Got it? Well, Varshavsky (playing white) played Be3?? here and quickly found himself down a piece after the obvious …d5. This horrendous blunder that most 1400s wouldn’t make seemed very suspicious to me.

Round 7 was really where all the “fireworks” began (sorry, that was a bad July 4th joke). Suddenly, Varshavsky is playing GM strength again and manages to beat world-class GM Ilya Smirin in a topical open-Ruy line:

Smirin - Varshavsky

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. Be3 Be7 10. c3 Nc5 11. h3 Nxb3 12. axb3 O-O 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Nbd2 a5 15. Nf1 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bg6 17. Qd2 h6 18. Rad1 Rad8 19. Qe2 b4 20. Rd2 Rfe8 21. Qd1 Qe6 22. Nd4 Nxd4 23. cxd4 f6 24. Bf4 fxe5 25. Bxe5 Qd7 26. Rde2 c5 27. Re3 Bg5 28. f4 Bh4 29. Rf1 Rf8 30. Kh2 Rf7 31. Qd2 cxd4 32. Qxd4 Qa7 33. Ne2 Qxd4 34. Nxd4 Be4 35. g3 Re8 36. Rc1 g5 37. f5 Rxe5 38. gxh4 gxh4 39. Re2 Ree7 40. Rf2 Rc7 41. Rcf1 Rf6 42. Rf4 Rg7 43. R1f2 Kf7 44. Rxh4 Ke7 45. Rg4 Rgf7 46. Kg3 Bxf5 47. Rgf4 Bd7 48. Re2+ Kd6 49. Rh4 Rg7+ 50. Kh2 Rg5 51. Rd2 h5 52. Re2 Rf1 53. Rd2 Be8 54. Rg2 Rxg2+ 55. Kxg2 Rd1 56. Kf2 Rd3 57. Ke2 Bg6 1-0

Michael Aigner’s finding that black’s last 25 moves match Fritz 9 perfectly is especially troubling in this game. In my opinion, Varshavsky should have been questioned and/or searched by the TDs IMMEDIATELY after this game. Instead, everyone watched as Smirin resigned and Varshavsky calmly sauntered out of the playing hall. It was not until the next morning that he was finally confronted.

The details of what happened during that confrontation seem pretty sketchy to me, so I won’t comment on them. I do know that Varshavsky – Najer began over an hour into round 8. Varshavsky was made to play without his bucket hat, and was quickly crushed. The final round was similar, as he was absolutely destroyed by GM Magesh Panchanathan. I couldn’t find these two game scores either, but let me assure you that Varshavsky’s strength in them could not have been a point over 1500.

Perhaps the best indicator of Varshavky’s guilt was his behavior in the final two rounds. It was in his eyes. For the whole tournament (and during our game), he kept his eyes glued to the board or his scoresheet. I never once saw him look around the room. Against Najer and Panchanathan, however, he seemed distinctly aware that he had been caught. I even made eye contact with him a few times. You know that look a dog gives you when it knows it has done something wrong? That was what I saw in Varshavsky’s eyes.

So, where can we go from here? For one thing, I believe that none of Varshavsky’s opponents should be penalized in rating for having lost or drawn to him. More importantly, I think that the Continental Chess Association and tournament directors should pay much closer attention to what is happening in big-money tournaments like the World Open. I know situations like these are rare and that 99% of chess players play the game honestly. However, it is the duty of the TD to step in and say “ok, enough is enough.” In this case, I believe that there was more than enough evidence to throw Eugene Varshavsky out of the tournament and ban him from rated chess. I genuinely enjoy playing in Goichberg/CCA events, so I hope nothing like this will ever happen again.
Posted by: John Bartholomew at July 6, 2006 16:40

It's amusing to me how some GMs/IMs, like Mr Finegold, will rant about the unfairness of class players winning huge prizes at events like the World Open. He should be thankfull that such lowly players, are willing to allow a portion of their steep entry fee's to be used to subsidize the creation of bigger open section prizes, than would otherwise exist. Most of the pro's realize that this is a good deal, and either welcome this arrangement, or are at least smart enough to keep contrary opinions to themselves. After all ... the amateur prizes could be just as large, with lower entry fees, if the open sections were eliminated.

There are other ways to achieve that chess fantasy weekend experience that the amateurs seek. We could probably fly in Topolav, put him up in a real nice room for 2 nights at the Four Seasons down the street, and pay him $10,000 to analyse games, eat meals with players, give a lecture, do a simul, etc. We would have random drawings to determine which lucky players got to participate in the more intimate events. Who knows, for $25,000 we might be able to swing Garry, and keep the same entry fees. Hmmmmmm....

Posted by: RP at July 6, 2006 17:08

As a minor correction, John Bartholomew picked up my error in the game result of Smirin-Varshavsky, which was indeed 0-1.
Posted by: fpawn at July 6, 2006 17:24

John,

In going over the games and the information supplied I think I would be suspect too. Having played fritz too often for my own good, there is a similar style of play. On the other hand, I think your 47th move made it easier for him. Those rooks had to come off the board. I would have liked to have seen how he would have played it out after that.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 17:52

Many of the comments seem to fall in with either of two positions concerning (either or both of) this year's crop of World Open cheating suspects:

1) They are being unfairly accused, punished based on insufficient evidence, etc., or

2) They were caught in the act, and Goichberg (and the USCF) wimped out by not banning them for life.

I think the real lesson is somewhat different; and in fact is equally applicable regardless of whether Varshavsky and/or Rosenberg is innocent or guilty of cheating.

The lesson, as I see it, is that big-time organizers, starting with Goichberg, need to focus serious attention on a variety of nuts-and-bolts issues (technological, logistical, economic, and evidentiary/legal) that arise in connection with detecting, proving, and punishing instances of cheating -- especially, computer-aided or communication-aided cheating of the kind discussed in this thread. And, the USCF should provide any support it can to organizers and TDs as they work their way through these difficult issues.

I do NOT believe that the CCA chickened out, or doesn't really want to catch cheaters, or is afraid to toss them when caught. I DO believe they are operating at a disadvantage -- which became evident in their response to the Varshavsky and Rosenberg allegations -- because they haven't been paying close attention to the potential for cheating, believing it to be too rare to be worth mounting a pro-active (as opposed to re-active) effort to stamp out.

Two things seem clear:

1) Organizers are still responding to incidents such as those at the World Open on an ad-hoc, entirely reactive basis. As a result, even Goichberg and his staff -- who one presumes represent the state-of-the-art in TD'ing and organizing big-money chess events -- seem poorly prepared, and are forced to make important decisions "on the fly."

2) The CCA (at least) is wising up. I found that Goichberg and associates are more concerned about the problem, and more sophisticated about how to combat it, than they were a year ago (when a suspicious earpiece-wearer tied for 1st in the U-2000 section but no one even made note of the earpiece until AFTER THE TOURNAMENT WAS OVER and he had collected his prize).

The need for serious study and advance planning for dealing with cheating, was the central message of the open letter that was sent to USCF Executive Director Bill Hall last November (www.seniorchess.zoomshare.com), bearing signatures of two well-known chess writers/instructors (one a GM, one an IM) plus 4 frequent class-section competitors including myself.

We received no response of any kind from Mr. Hall or Mr. Goichberg -- not even a form email acknowledging receipt of our letter.

Subsequently, I stopped raising the issue. The main obstacle, it seemed, was that players themselvers were unconcerned. Among various players I spoke to after the petition appeared, I found almost none willing to give up any rights or conveniences at all, in order to help create an environment where cheating would be harder to get away with. And if the players (customers) don't want it, the organizers aren't going to do it; they after all are in business to satisfy their customers.

I hope that the discussion on this thread indicates that more players now feel a sense of outrage, and a sense of urgency, to do something about cheating. That was the sort of groundswell I had hoped to create a year ago through the petition.

Perhaps it will take more high-profile incidents before enough customers (players) feel personally affected by (potential) cheating that the TD community will wake up and mount a more organized, planned campaign to combat it, instead of having to constantly re-invent the wheel.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 18:17

Since I know of at least one loser here who actually spends his time counting any errors that crop up in my comments (he has actually admitted such in one of his comments on another Dirt thread), I will correct my previous one to note that the suspicious earpiece wearer who tied for first last year at the World Open played in the U-2200 section, not the U-2000 as initially stated.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 18:24

Peace...

First, to add to the discourse regarding high prize funds for amateur players, I actually believe that stronger players who spend time training amateurs benefit from this. The reason is that lessons with them are therefore seen as an investment even if the student does not have aspirations toward a GM title, because the immediate goal of preparing for one of these tournaments is quite strong motivation for seeking the wisdom of stronger players.

Second, I imagine that a big part of the dissonance in the discussion about penalizing cheaters revolves around how much evidence should be required before a person is booted from an event. Rare will be the instance when a person is caught in a restroom stall with Pocket Fritz in full effect or somesuch, so there really does need to be a standard that allows for punishing of suspicious behavior. The point of addressing cheating is that the event should be fair to all entrants, and the greater evil for an organizer is definitely in appearing not to be concerned about fairness in the event. The accused should have fair recourse for defending themselves, of course, but this is one case in which erring on the side of caution translates into excluding an individual who is thought to be cheating and is uncooperative when confronted. Clearly, we should not have a burden of proof that allows us only to penalize people whose actions are obvious.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 18:51

one other little tidbit from my National open game with Varshavsky. He did talk to me once. Boards and pieces were provided at this event. All the players in a row of boards with the same color faced the same direction. I opened with 1.Nf3. He arrived late and stared at the board for 7-8 minutes. Finally he softly asked if we could turn the board around; I hadn't noticed..but somehow the A-H 1-8 grid had been turned around. We corrected it. I was surprised a 2200 player would even notice this. How many players at that level use the dummy markings? He took quite a bit of time as black to reach the following set up: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 b6 3.cxd Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qb7 (wow). 5.d4 Nf6 6.g3 e6 7.Bg2 Qa6 8.O-O Bb7 He wandered away from the playing room for 15-20 minutes at this point. I wondered if this was some sort of pet system of his. If so, why would he take several minutes per move against a weaker opponent? How could he defeat a GM with this stuff? Is he a cheater or just a very weird guy? Or maybe a normal guy posing as a bizarre genius to avoid suspicion of cheating? If he is cheating it seems like he would've changed his suspicious looking heavy clothing and hat by now..or would he? Once again, I want to state that I'm not suggesting he needed "help" to beat me. This is meant as more grist for the mill.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 6, 2006 18:53

Peace...

I played Varshavsky in the World Open in 2003, winning a very long game against him in Rd. 4. I do not recall this suspicious hat nor jacket being part of the attire, but I do recall him getting to the board late and taking a while before meeting 1. Nf3 with 1. ...d5. The time use could simply be some psychological ploy, I guess. Anyway, he did not play incredibly weak chess, losing the thread only once we got to the sudden-death blitz-off phase, so the blindness against Georgi this year is quite surprising. (Nevertheless, even such blindness is not evidence of cheating, because I pitched my queen in Rd. 7 in some elementary fashion, and please believe that I did not mean to do it! Ironically, after that long game, I played the night round against Chris Sevilla, who was the opponent of Steve Rosenberg in the final round of the World Open this year.

Hotep,

Maliq
Posted by: Maliq Soter at July 6, 2006 19:25

John Bartholomew--
Excellent post.
Posted by: greg koster at July 6, 2006 19:51

I dont know any of the people discussed here. I was not at the world open. I do have a vested interest in fairness and truth as I believe everyone has the same vested interest.

I am happy to say from the evidence presented here so far that I believe that Steve Rosenberg played honestly and did not cheat. My view is that the problem is that the TD did not show appropriate leadership. there should have been a writen posted policy on cheating. so that when Rosenberg was questioned he would have been prepared for the questioning. he would have known that he was going through a certain procedure. but Steve did not have this. he had total focus on him and the unfair situation. he was in a unique position with nothing to fall back on. no rights and no procedures stated. it was totally unfair the treatment that he received. I more than understand his decision to not cooperate. it must have seemed like the only thing he could do in an incredible situation. especially being innocent.

The failing here has come from the powers to be. and as usual those with no power lose when the power is wrong.

Pressure must be brought onto Goichberg to have a printed statement of policy on cheating. what the player can expect will happen. what is the policy on wearing a hearing aid for those who are hearing impaired. had Rosenberg known the policy before arriving at the tournament he could have brought with him a doctors statement of his hearing condition. something no one would normally have.

it looks to me like there was a suspicion over a hearing aid the previous year and steve suffered for it. he came not knowing that the powers were going to be gunning for anyone who was hearing impaired to make up for the previous year.

I believe an innocent man was wrongly hurt. I think everything should be done to restore his reputation.

Goichberg is President of USCF also. he is in too many power positions to not fix this problem. it is now shown how wrong it is for him to try to treat these matters by the seat of his pants at the time of happening. The players deserve to have a policy in place. a policy so the player knows what is happening. with such a policy I believe that Steve Rosenberg would have more fully cooperated and this incident would not have spiraled out of hand.

the one with all the power carries the burden of responsibility and fairness. Goichberg let us all down. He let us down as the TD and as the president of the USCF.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 20:11

I dont know any of the people discussed here. I was not at the world open. I do have a vested interest in fairness and truth as I believe everyone has the same vested interest.

I am happy to say from the evidence presented here so far that I believe that Steve Rosenberg played honestly and did not cheat. My view is that the problem is that the TD did not show appropriate leadership. there should have been a writen posted policy on cheating. so that when Rosenberg was questioned he would have been prepared for the questioning. he would have known that he was going through a certain procedure. but Steve did not have this. he had total focus on him and the unfair situation. he was in a unique position with nothing to fall back on. no rights and no procedures stated. it was totally unfair the treatment that he received. I more than understand his decision to not cooperate. it must have seemed like the only thing he could do in an incredible situation. especially being innocent.

The failing here has come from the powers to be. and as usual those with no power lose when the power is wrong.

Pressure must be brought onto Goichberg to have a printed statement of policy on cheating. what the player can expect will happen. what is the policy on wearing a hearing aid for those who are hearing impaired. had Rosenberg known the policy before arriving at the tournament he could have brought with him a doctors statement of his hearing condition. something no one would normally have.

it looks to me like there was a suspicion over a hearing aid the previous year and steve suffered for it. he came not knowing that the powers were going to be gunning for anyone who was hearing impaired to make up for the previous year.

I believe an innocent man was wrongly hurt. I think everything should be done to restore his reputation.

Goichberg is President of USCF also. he is in too many power positions to not fix this problem. it is now shown how wrong it is for him to try to treat these matters by the seat of his pants at the time of happening. The players deserve to have a policy in place. a policy so the player knows what is happening. with such a policy I believe that Steve Rosenberg would have more fully cooperated and this incident would not have spiraled out of hand.

the one with all the power carries the burden of responsibility and fairness. Goichberg let us all down. He let us down as the TD and as the president of the USCF.
Posted by: tommy at July 6, 2006 20:11

People here actually defend terrible chess players winning $10K or so, whilst good players who do well win $50, if lucky. Then there are scores of posts about what to do about alleged cheating, possible cheating, and real cheating. Keep my opinions to myself? Isn't this a blog where anyone can post whatever they feel like saying? Isn't this the "Daily Dirt?"

The GMs who won $$$$ in the Open DO NOT get free entry, as $$$$ is taken out of their prize. If a GM finished all his/her games and wins no prize, they are not charged an entry fee. The Open section has the most players, so I do not see the lower sections "subsidizing" the Open section.

I know quite a bit about the "cheating" situations in the World Open, and for a floor director to assert the "correct" decisions were made in the cases mentioned is a very odd statement. Nobody points out there was probably a lot of cheating that was not suspected, as if the TWO cases discussed here were the ONLY ones in the entire event and everyone was "caught."

One poster wrote that the World Open and possibly the Chicago Open are the only events that offer ridiculous prizes to weak players. I think there are a few more events where weak players can win thousands.

If you do not like my posts, or do not agree with what I say, then don't read them. My name is clearly marked at the end of each post. Unfortunately, I read all the posts! :)

The World Open is a great event, and the cheating makes it even more interesting....but it is silly to think cheaters will be caught. Some will, and some won't...no system is perfect, and when people cheat at chess tournaments with sooooo much money...I do not blame the "cheaters" ...I blame the system which instills belief that people who have little ability have better chances to make $$$ than others. This situation DEMANDS cheating take place....and it does. I wonder if about 100 people were cheating and 2-3 were caught....that would be funny (and possibly true).

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 20:15

Would you give a 2K class prize back if Kelly won it?
Posted by: Andrew Bell at July 6, 2006 21:42

Normally I'd be disinclined to argue with a chess pro here, but Mr. Finegold's last comment shows a high enough level of arrogance and illogic that I feel a modicum of comfort in pointing it out.

First of all, a review of the just-posted rating lists for the World Open suggests it isn't true that the Open was the largest section. (Although it could be true after all, because re-entries were not allowed in the Open but were allowed in other sections such as the U-2000 which shows 42 more players than the Open, and the U-1600 which shows 7 more players than the open.)

Regardless, I believe at most big tournaments the top section draws fewer entrants (and especially, fewer PAYING entrants) than some or most of the lower sections. That should be self-evident, since by definition there are more average-level players than strong players, and the majority of class players in practice choose to play in class sections (even if some choose to "play up" a class).

Of course, even if the open section at the World Open did have more players than any other single section, the other sections would STILL be subsidizing the open prizes (depending on the degree of difference in entries), because prizes in the Open section were 66% greater than comparable prizes in most of the class sections.

So, we see that Mr. Finegold began his rant with a likely factual error ("the Open section has the most players,..."), immediately hitched to an obvious error in thought ("...so I do not see the lower sections 'subsidizing' the Open section.")

It is true that it isn't only pros who sometimes inveigh against CCA (and other big Swiss system) prize distributions that include large class-section prizes. I've seen some class players such as Josh Gutman make the same argument.

Along with Mr. Finegold, such people never say where they would get the money to make up for the amateur entry fees that currently pay for the bulk of Open section prize funds. (As RP, Okechukwu Iwu, and "Mike" all correctly indicated earler in this thread, Reduced class section prizes = reduced class section entry fees AND fewer entrants in class sections = less revenue to support Open section prizes.) Last year I repeatedly challenged Josh Gutman on that point, both on Dirt and another blog, and he never gave an answer.

I'll add that I've also heard the position on the other extreme -- one that I suspect would make Mr. Finegold shiver in his boots. Not long ago I listened to a B-rated player argue passionately and in detail that the prize fund in each section should be in exact proportion to the total entry fees received for that section, so that no section would ever have to subsidize another section. If I'm right that top sections usually draw fewer, not more, entrants than class sections at big tournaments, then such a system would actually require SMALLER prizes for the Open than, say, the U-1800; or else the Open section would have to charge higher entry fees than other sections, in order to support higher prizes for the Open (the way it's done at backgammon tournaments, according to "Mike" above).

I personally would not favor such a system. I do believe that we average players benefit to some degree from being able to watch socialize with, and in the best case even analyze with, GMs and IMs. Therefore I am perfectly happy to see a portion of my entry fees subsidize "their" prizes. It's all a question of proportion. I think the present prize allocation is just fine.
Posted by: Jon Jacobs at July 6, 2006 21:51

"I do not blame the "cheaters" ...I blame the system which instills belief that people who have little ability have better chances to make $$$ than others."

Welcome to America Ben, that's about as asinine a statement as I've read or heard in sometime. Since you so freely express what I can only interpret as an elitist attitude, you so easily fit the stereotype of what many of us poor little chess amateurs perceive to be typical character flaws of many GM's; arrogant, self-serving and self righteous to name a few.

Also, in one sentence you express the opinion that one should be allowed to express "whatever they feel like saying" then a little later you say "if you don't like my posts, or do not agree with what I say don't read them. Do you actually take the time to think about what your saying or is this more of that self-serving blather?

If all of the Grandmasters thought along similar lines as yourself, maybe it would be a idea if they lost the monetary support of amateurs. Not to denigrate those who do, but there's always an opening at Burger King or a Taxi Service, Ben.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:16

I played Varshavsky at the 2005 National Open in Vegas as well. He showed up 30 to 40 minutes late, and then actually mentioned he was using a hearing aid - and that if I wanted to offer a draw, I should tap the table. Then he spent another 20-30 minutes on his first 6 or 7 moves (in a simple French position). He then proceeded to play fairly quickly the rest of the game, and reached move 40 with more time than I did - although he had a lost position at that point.

The other oddity in the game was his strange rook moves, playing Rac1 at move 14, then a couple moves later moving the same rook to b1, then the next move to d1. It inspired me to make some of my own strange rook moves in the game. :) Although I thought the whole experience very strange, it must be said that if Varshavsky had won this last round game, I believe he would have gotten prize money.

[Event "Vegas"]
[Date "2005.12.28"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Varshavsky"]
[Black "Evans"]
[Result "0-1"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 5. Nxe4 Nbd7 6. Nf3 h6 7. Nxf6+ Nxf6
8. Bh4 Be7 9. Bd3 c5 10. c3 cxd4 11. Nxd4 O-O 12. O-O Qb6 13. Qc2 Bd7 14. Rac1
Rfe8 15. Rfe1 Rac8 16. Rb1 a6 17. Rbd1 Rcd8 18. a4 Qa5 19. b3 Rc8 20. c4 b5 21.
axb5 axb5 22. Rc1 bxc4 23. bxc4 Bb4 24. Re2 Qa7 25. Bxf6 gxf6 26. Nf3 Qa5 27.
h3 Rc5 28. Nd4 Qc7 29. Re4 f5 30. Rh4 Qd8 31. Nf3 Bc6 32. Rf4 Qd6 33. Rd4 Qe7
34. Be2 Ra5 35. Rb1 Bc5 36. Rdd1 Rea8 37. Qc1 Qf6 38. Nd2 Qh4 39. Rf1 Ra2 40.
Qd1 Rd8 41. Qb3 Raxd2 42. Rb2 Rxb2 43. Qxb2 Qg3 0-1
Posted by: Bela at July 6, 2006 22:17

I'll add that Ben is intelligent enough to know that if he wants real cash for his time, he'd better either 1) start playing 2750+ FIDE chess, or 2) get a real job in the private sector! Cuz mere 2600 USCF players offer nothing not already satiated by 2700 FIDE players and thus get paid zilch.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 6, 2006 22:24

I posted something on here but it was withheld for proofreading by the webmaster. I can't remember what I wrote, but I just want to say that maybe I'm just cynical, but I don't think Goichberg is consciously asking one section to subsidize another. Again, maybe I'm just cynical, but Goichberg is setting all the section prizes so as to draw the most profit for himself! If the open section's prize fund is large then it's because a big prize fund draws big names which lure more people to go to his tournament which makes him more money. If the section prizes are so high then it's for the same reason: to get more money from himself! This isn't about Robin-Hood. This is about the pockets of Goichberg. Of course I could be wrong. But then you don't have to believe me so it's okay for me to be wrong.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 6, 2006 22:28

Kelly would never win a class prize of $2000....she plays in the Open section and beats (and loses and draws) good players. Beating weak players is not a way to improve your chess, and it is a waste of time to drive 600 miles to play weak players.

A lot of posters here refer to my name and then say why I am wrong about all my statements. Attacking me and my views is not relevant to the arguments made. If weak players want to pay $$$$$ and win $$$$$ by cheating, then so be it. I do not care what the prizes are in the top section. People who post here make a lot of false assumptions about me and my posts. They think I want $$$$$$ in the Open section, and everyone else can go to hell. Although that is a fine idea, that is not the point of my posts at all. I play chess when the prizes are very small. I have won tournaments in Michigan, where I live, and get $20-$50 sometimes. But my wife likes to play chess, and we usually play in the same events, as chess can be fun and we can always learn. I would play in the World Open regardless of the prizes, and I (and most people) are glad 50 GMs and lots of other strong players come to play chess. It is a lot of fun to watch and be there and talk to old friends.

What is not fun (although it is funny) is seeing low rated players yell, cheat, scream, bang the clock to death, argue, and cause a commotion due to the fact that $$$$$$$ is on the line that should not be. Chess is a fun game, and it is great to learn from....but when $$$$ is given for weak play, the game becomes something else. This $$$$$ for low rated players causes cheating to occur, and it will never stop. People will always try to cheat, if it can give them a winning edge, and I mean winning at chess and rating points, and $$$$$. The money is the real incentive to cheat, so there is cheating.

All of my arguments against HUGE prizefunds for weak players is not an argument FOR huge money for top players. If top players (and I do not mean me, I mean better players like Kamsky, Milov, etc) get huge huge money...then....sometimes they (not Kamsky or Milov) cheat (or try to cheat) as well. Some GMs have excellent reputations and never do anything that is even close to inappropriate, but, since a lot of GMs make money playing chess exclusively, there are SOME suspicious activities, and sometimes these are frowned upon (people who read the Dirt know what I mean!).

The prize allocation is not fine as a poster asserted, it just leads to more cheating and more refined ways to cheat.

The World Open is actually more fun due to the silly prize structure. It makes things more exciting for a variety of reasons (not all chess related).

Sorry I made factual errors in my post...I must be the first poster ever to do that on this blog.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:31

Bill Goichberg, in my opinion, has an excellent sense of fairness. Now, what he thinks is fair, may not be to your liking. Bill obviously feels the Open section should have bigger prizes (like most people think rich people should pay more taxes). But, he wants a lot of people to come to his tournaments, so he has high prizes for everyone, and he wants to maximize his profits as well (who doesn't?). Yet, he pays GMs to give lectures eveyday and a GM will analyze your game as well, so everyone can have a good time at the tournament.

I agree that Bill's intent is not to "subsidize" the top section with low rated player EFs. Although it may work out that way, that is the SMALL prize low rated players pay to see 50 GMs in one room!!! The World Open is a fun tournament if you just come and watch.

You guys think I am arrogant.....I read that Onischuk showed up, and decided not to play because chess sets and clocks were not provided for the top players! I do not know if that is 100% accurate (I did read it in more than one place).....but I must say, whilst I agree with Oni, I played in any case (and I had no equipment, but that did not stop me!). :)

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:36

Don't tell "der strudel" that I tied for first in the 2005 National Open last year and the 2006 Chicago Open this year....as well as =1st in the 2002 World Open and the 1994 US Open....or he may make give back my prize money due to my awful 2600+ USCF rating.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:45

Good, then lets have $10 entry fees with a $100 first prize and a $50 second prize for each division at every tournament nation wide. Grandmasters could probably afford to pay that and cheaters certainly would not have much incentive to do their thing. Oh, wait a minute, there wouldn't be any Grandmasters.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:54

I do not understand chesstraveler's post. Maybe you can elaborate? If you are going to mention me by name, please give your own name. You quote what I said, and it makes perfect sense, and you do not say why it does not.

Obviously bad chess players should not win lots of money for playing chess, that makes no sense.

Welcome to America? Thanks!

I am not a GM, but when I get the title, I will try to live up to your expectations.

I do not see amateurs supporting GMs or other professional players. Top players make money by playing tournaments and winning prize money, writing, and giving lessons. The World's best players generally make money in sponsored tournaments and matches by large corporations, as would be expected.

(IM)BPF :)
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:54

The last post by chesstraveler describes 95% of the tournaments in Michigan...except the prizes he mentions are usually not that high! :)

I have organized and directed a lot of tournaments similar to that entry and prize structure.

We have very little cheating here as a result, you are correct.

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 22:57

BPF,

Now I can add "namedropper" to the list of character flaws.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:57

My last post is in reference to Onischuk.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 6, 2006 22:59

Your in the minority in the chess world Finegold. The patzers make it possible for crybabies like you to compete against your top level eurotrash buddies. Why dont you move to Belarus.

By the way, your Smith Morra book stinks and the DVD's really suck.
Posted by: Patzer joe at July 6, 2006 22:59

I will go back to reading silly posts instead of posting them myself and arguing the gawking rabble.

Usually I can post for 3-4 days before getting fed up, but my patience is either less than it is used to be, or people here are even more annoying than before (as the mayor's aid said to Joe Quimby, "Dumber sir.")

Ok, back to reading the insulting posts instead of absorbing them! :)

BPF
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:02

yes do that, you suck and so does your patzer wife.
Posted by: john at July 6, 2006 23:05

Ok, ok...I have to post once more, as Patzerjoe's post was too good to simply not respond!

First, it is spelled "you're" not your.

Top level Eurotrash??? lol....that is funny, but I am not sure why.

My book on the Smith-Morra was co-authored by Bob Ciaffone, and it generally gets good reviews, mainly due to the fact that it is all original analysis and most of it is quite good. I did none of the prose, just the analysis. The book was published in 2000, so there have been some errors found. We may come out with a second edition, not sure....that is really up to Bob.

I am surprised you did not like my book, yet you have all three of my DVD's? Most people told me they like the DVD's, but you are entitled to your opinion. Making them was fun anyways.

Ok, I am done......I know when I am not wanted! :)

BPF

PS Still fun to read the posts when people don't lambaste you to pieces!
Posted by: Ben Finegold at July 6, 2006 23:08

Mr Feingold:

I have admired your play for a long time but I have a few comments.

Your statement that if someone doesn't agree with you to not read your posts is, well, in very poor taste, to say the least and projects an arrogant attitude which I'm sure you didn't mean.

I did a quick calculation and concluded that the lower sections are subsidizing the Open section to the tune of about $47,000. The total prize fund available for the Open was about $129,000.

I just don't understand your abvious hate for lower players who can win more money. Give us little guys a chance, please. Heck, didn't a 1600 rated player qualify for the US Championship?

I hope to play in the World Open some day. I haven't played in a rated tournament in about 20 years but my friends say that I play much better than my current rating (1589) would indicate, maybe 1650. lol

I certainly hope you get the GM title you have deserved for so long!

Cheers,

John J.
Posted by: John J at July 6, 2006 23:28

I have to say I fully support Finegold in this. I also think the huge prizes to patzers (yes, sorry to say it, everyone below U2200) are ridicilous. It surely gives an incentive for them to cheat and that means cheating will happen.

I also think the entry fees of $400 are way too high and a lot more people would take part in these events if the fees were to be lowered. Taking part in a tournament should not cost more than $150, IMO. I haven't seen any open tournaments in Europe with higher fees than that, usually they are even lower.

Play chess for the game itself, not for the money.
Posted by: EeEk at July 6, 2006 23:38

An International Master gives his opinion (yes, his OPINION)on how to stop cheating and all you guys can do is insult the man??????????
You dont have to agree with him, but calling him AND his wife names is pathetic. Did he attack any of your wives or family members?
Posted by: Tony West at July 6, 2006 23:47

Welcome to the interweb, Tony West, where any yahoo can get online and trash people he's never met.

BPF, take care to have a thick skin. Your blog is good. Keep it up.
Posted by: anonymous coward at July 7, 2006 00:03

OK I apologize to Finegold and his wife for saying they suck. I will refine my comment about Finegold, he doesnt suck but he sure seems arrogant from his comments. He wouldnt have a world open, chicago open etc to go to if it wasnt for the fishes.

Posted by: patzerjoe at July 7, 2006 00:04

I must say that Ben Finegold is making me laugh. His math skills are so bad that he cannot see how the lower sections subsidised the Open section. He then thinks it is ridiculous that the money left over for the lower sections actually goes to the people playing in that section that put up the money in the first place. LOL....... What IS ridiculous is his wife playing in the US Championship with a B rating. He allowed that farce to continue but wants to bitch about the lower sections being paid back the money they put into the tournament. The arrogance this displays is amazing.
Posted by: James at July 7, 2006 00:19

Finegold is not very perceptive: the money he talks about are not "prizes". They are "winnings" from a gambling operation called "World Open". When the "prizes" come from the players' pockets, they are just gambling.

It is that simple.
Posted by: tgg at July 7, 2006 00:38

I played Varshavsky in the last round of the National Open, where I was very surprised by the way he played. It seemed like he had no real understanding of the game but managed to find a lot of strong moves. If he did use computer assistance, I am pretty sure he didn't do it on every single move, since I think any computer program would have crushed me in the position that we had after move 30. As it happened, he eventually let me escape into a fortress in the endgame.

[Event "National Open"]
[Site "Las Vegas USA"]
[Date "2006.06.18"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Kriventsov, Stanislav G"]
[Black "Varshavsky, Eugene"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. f3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. Be3 Nbd7 9. Qd2 Be7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. g4 Nb6 12. Kb1 a5 13. h4 a4 14. Nc1 d5 15.Bxb6 Qxb6 16. Nxd5 Bxd5 17. exd5 Rfe8 18. g5 Nh5 19. d6 Red8 20. d7 Ng3 21. Rh2 Nxf1 22. Rxf1 Bd6 23. g6 hxg6 24. h5 e4 25. hxg6 Bxh2 26. gxf7+ Kf8 27. Qxh2 a3 28. Qh8+ Kxf7 29. Qh5+ Ke7 30. Nb3 Qf6 31. bxa3 Ra6 32. Re1 Rxd7 33. fxe4 Rc6 34. e5 Qf2 35. Re2 Rd1+ 36. Kb2 Qg3 37. a4 Rd5 38. a3 Rh6 39. Qf5 Rc6 40. Qe4 Qc3+ 41. Ka2 Qc4 42. Qg2 g6 43. Qh2 Kd7 44. e6+ Rxe6 45. Qh7+ Kd6 46. Rxe6+
Kxe6 47. Qxg6+ Kd7 48. Qf7+ Kc8 49. Kb2 Qc6 50. a5 Rd8 51. Qf5+ Kb8 52. Qe5+ Ka8 53. Qc3 Rc8 54. Qxc6 Rxc6 55. c3 Ka7 56. Kc2 Rc4 57. Kd3 Ra4 58. c4 Kb8 59. Kc3 Kc7 60. Nc5 Rxa3+ 61. Kb4 Ra2 62. Nb3 Kd6 63. Nd4 Rb2+ 64. Nb3 Rb1 65. Kc3 Rf1 66. Kb4 Rf3 67. Nd4 Rd3 68. Nb3 Rf3 69. Nd4 Rf1 70. Nb3 Re1 71. Nd4 Rb1+ 72. Nb3 Kc6 73. Kc3 Kd6 74. Kb4 Rb2 75. Kc3 Re2 76. Kb4 Rf2 77. Kc3 Rf1 78. Kb4
1/2-1/2
Posted by: Stan Kriventsov at July 7, 2006 02:06

Ben,

There is a big difference in class players having to pay $300 entry fees up front and professional players having themn subtracted only IF they win a prize. I don't have to go into finance and cash flows to show that the professional players have the ultimate advantage of delaying "payment" of the fees. Even the professionals that did not win received a chance to win without having to pay the standard fee.
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 7, 2006 02:10

On another note...

...here are a few interviews I conducted with assorted players.

http://www.thechessdrum.net/newsbriefs/2006/NB_WorldOpen2.html

Photo gallery coming!
Posted by: Daaim Shabazz at July 7, 2006 02:20

It's called an "advance" and is used all the time in publishing. Say the "advance" is $100 and the royalties on sales is 10% and the book costs $10. The author of the book does not begin to collect royalties until he or she sells 100 books to make up for the $100 given to him or her in advance. If the author does not sell 100 copies then he or she still gets to keep the $100 given to him or her in advance.
Posted by: superfreaky at July 7, 2006 02:21

Ben is right about everything. it's easy for all of your pussies to attack him when you don't give your real name and can't even play 1300 level chess. Next you'll want the PGA tour to have miniature golf with huge prizes for idiots who can't play real golf...like me.

Ben, don't even waste your time. Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics....
Posted by: fluffy at July 7, 2006 02:36

Comments on the USCF site regarding the 'scandal'.

"Another scandal came about in the U2000 section, in which an alert TD noticed a suspicious looking hearing aid. The player was called out of the tourament hall, and the hearing aid was removed. A web address printed on it pointed TDs to a website for small radio transmission devices. The player was forfeited and his opponent guaranteed a share of the U2000 prize."
Posted by: John J at July 7, 2006 02:51

Obviously somebody in a position of power (perhaps the tournament promoters) could simply declare that people wearing hearing aids need to declare the fact ahead of time with the T.D. and be prepared to submit to routine inspection. To borrow from ol' Nimzo: "the threat is stronger than the execution". Warning cheats ahead of time that you're looking can only help. This would protect the dignity of people wearing them for legit purposes and make the rest of us feel safer about gambling hundreds of $$$ for entry fees. Athletes are subject to equipment spot checks..I don't see anything insulting about it.
Posted by: whiskeyrebel at July 7, 2006 03:57

Who are you calling eurotrash, Patzer joe? It is people like you that have created the streotype of a 'dumb and ignorant American' here in Europe. My apologies to the good people of America, but that's the way it is: the ignorance people like Patzer joe show smears the image of America and not only in the eyes of the Europeans. And by the way, most of the stuff that Finegold is stating makes alot of sense.
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 04:00

We've alerted the NSA to Mr X, an America-hater. His hard drive has been searched, imaged, and permanently cached by the Total Information Awareness system. His communications and computing activities is monitored 24/7/365 henceforth. Further expressions of opposition to our New World Order and we may rendition him, or electronically pinpoint his location and scramble an F-16 for a surgical strike, under the Bush Doctrine "you are either with us, or annihilated by us".
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 04:28

That's lame. If you knew how to read in between the lines you'd realize I am not an America-hater at all. But obviously you lack that ability.
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 05:51

Ben makes sense to me, and even for this place I'm surprised at the level of mindless yelling going on, even if you disagree.

Q
Posted by: Quely at July 7, 2006 05:58

Mr X:

Obviously you eurotrash (that's "euro" with a small "e") haven't caught on. We distinguish clearly: black or white. You're either good, or you're evil. You're either with us, or you're dead. We are the world's policemen and must maintain world order -- our Order. Patzer Joe is an American, which makes him better than you. Even if Joe's rated 729 USCF, and you 're an IM, which you're not.
Posted by: Der Strudel at July 7, 2006 06:06

I salute you in the spirit that is obviously required (even though it sickens me): Sieg Heil!
Posted by: Mr X at July 7, 2006 06:50

Hmmm, some things Ben said I agree with. I agree mostly agree with EeEk and that is hard for me to say:-) The entry fees are way too high and more than what my U2200 patzer behind will ever pay. I like to play chess and everyone has to start somewhere. I don't understand you loud mouths that can't carry on a decent conversation without insulting a man's family with whomm you don't agree. I guess that is the great thing about the anonymity of the internet. You can't break stupid peoples noses.
Posted by: Glenn at July 7, 2006 07:30

"The problem with "cheating" in these tournaments is not the "cheaters" but the fact that low rated chess players can win $$$$$$$$$$$$ by beating players who also have not achieved great acumen at the game. Are there other games where non-professionals who are simply average players can win thousands of dollars by beating other non-pros? If weaker players have enormous prizes, there will always be people trying to cheat. I wonder how many people who were cheating or tried to cheat were not caught or suspected at all. Probably at least a few."

That's as irrational a statement as I've ever seen on here. What would these 'weak' players be doing spending a thousand dollars to play in Philadelphia if there wasn't some sort of incentive? Who do you think feeds the pot at other tournaments, there, IM? Some people have regular day jobs, and can't devote themselves 24/7 to chess - that means they shouldn't have a chance to compete for anything but rating points.

As for the relative paucity of the money for the GMs, there was crowding at the top. For example, what makes an IM like yourself think he's going to take home a payday in a field of strong-to-medium GMs? And as to Kamsky getting only 6K for his efforts, maybe he should have thought twice before taking that 'GM draw' in the last round.

Jacobs point is great - "I'll add that I've also heard the position on the other extreme -- one that I suspect would make Mr. Finegold shiver in his boots. Not long ago I listened to a B-rated player argue passionately and in detail that the prize fund in each section should be in exact proportion to the total entry fees received for that section,"

And I guess I'll put my name on this one:
Posted by: Patrick Harley at July 7, 2006 10:56

You patzers are pathetic to attack Finegold for speaking the absolute truth. Chess has been hijacked by the likes of Goichberg and other organizers that are in it for the money. To maximize profit, the maximum turnouts are needed. Every tournament measures success by the total turnout GET IT? IT is nothing but preposterous that Chess has downward spiraled into Class players winning more than the top and BEST players. How can Chess be taken seriously in it's current form when a 1344 rated player earns more than all 50 Grandmasters? I cannot rationally explain this to anyone without the inevitable " WHY WASTE TIME ON THAT SILLINESS?
No other serious activity demeans itself to adopt this format. Where is the emphasis on excellence and improving? If you wish to pony up several hundred and make twenty something thousand dollars then take up Texas Hold-em or any of the other Casino games.
Posted by: unCommon Sense at July 7, 2006 11:21

I find Fluffy calling others "pussies" amusing, just a thought. :) Also, the "B player" with the idea of prize funds being in direct proportion to entry fees in each section is right on the money.
Posted by: chesstraveler at July 7, 2006 11:27

fluffy your argument has too many holes in it.
**********

Ben is right about everything. it's easy for all of your pussies to attack him when you don't give your real name and can't even play 1300 level chess. Next you'll want the PGA tour to have miniature golf with huge prizes for idiots who can't play real golf...like me.

Ben, don't even waste your time. Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics....

Posted by: fluffy at July 7, 2006 02:36
*************

come now fluffy "everything" well some things but not "everything"

I think if 200 people want to get together and put up $400 each ( $80,000 ) to play some miniature golf for $20,000 first prize, etc. I think all the 200 people have a right to do that. and they can do it without