Greengard's ChessNinja.com

2007 US Ch r1

| Permalink | 15 comments

The Frank K. Berry 2007 US Championship is underway! Live games are finally up here. They must have had a late start. Funny, a first-round Friedel-Nakamura rematch. Josh beat the then-defending champ last year in San Diego. Onischuk-Browne doesn't appear to be working. If Walter is having to use one of those little computers they are in trouble. I've seen what that man can do to his own laptop. Note that the "brilliant game" vote thingy at the Monroi site has nothing to do with our game prizes, which are for the whole tournament.


Are the games still under play? The Monroi scores all stop at move 40/41, right now...

The last game just ended a few minutes ago: Onischuk defeating Browne in a nice time scramble!

Is the Monroi site working now? I saw some "dirty" pictures on it before and decided the site wasn't about chess. Anyway, hope it's fixed, but it really wasn't suitable for my children.

Re the donations: As a Scot, isn`t John Henderson more likely to know his Whisky rather than his (Irish)Whiskey?

I find it funny that the live games site obviously suggests that a draw can't be a brilliant game! At least on that Monroi site one can only vote for games that ended in a decisive result to receive a brlliancy price. Absolutely ridiculous.
A hard fought draw can many times be a lot more exciting and more educational than a massacre where the other party is just clueless, even it were filled with sacs and all that stuff that is so nice visually/virtually.

Mr. X,

I agree to the extent that "MOST BRILLIANT GAME" is a vague concept, but "BRILLIANCY PRIZE" usually implies that one side played brilliantly to get a decisive result. That does not mean that a draw cannot be exciting, but who ever heard of a "brilliant" draw (or loss)?" Have there been any brilliancy prizes awarded to a person who draws a game? Maybe... I don't know... haven't heard of one.

The question... is this for "MOST BRILLIANT GAME" or "BRILLIANCY PRIZE"? There is a difference.

Yes, but the prize is split evenly between the two players. There is (and ought to be) a bias towards awarding the Brilliancy Prize to decisive games, but if a tactical slugfest that is played on through an endgame happens to demonstrate the greatest brilliance, there is no reason not to recognize that accomplishment, even if the result is a draw.

A "brilliant loss" would presumably describe a game where somebody played sound sacrifices and prakling tactics to achieve a winning position, but who lost due to a blunder, or because of Zeitnot. In this era of Sudden Death games, that scenario happens more frequently than you might assume.

Brilliancy Prize. There is a good case, and some precedent, for awarding that to the game (both players) and not just the winner. Of course you do have games in which the dazzling creativity was mostly on the attacker's side and the loser basically got pushed along until succumbing. Then it's a little weird to reward him. Perhaps an 80-20% split as a sort of consolation for getting your butt kicked beautifully.

Two brilliant draws spring immediately to mind:

1) Fischer vs Tal, 1960 Leipzig Olympiad
2) Tal vs Aronin(?), 1957 USSR

Of course, both games feature Tal. :-)

No matter how good it really is or the fact that maybe Nakamura's position after the opening seemed pretty dubious (to a fish)... Rc4!! is an amazing concept.

On the subject of brilliant draws, why not mention Evans-Reshevsky, from the 1963-4 US-ch tournament?

On top of that, you have Averbakh - Spassky, Leningrad 1956, from Tim Krabbe's list of amazing moves, and Smerdon-Hansen from last year's Olimpiad, where White made a nice save while down two pawns.

DP, Nakamura's...Rc4! was a good exchange sac but as there was no other way to play for a win I'm not sure we can call it an "amazing concept".

I agree with most of the above posts with one small issue concerning brilliant draws.

Can a saving half a point from a completely lost position be brilliant? I suppose so. However, I think the "brilliant draws" are when two players slug it out in a complicated battle (tactical or positional) and the game peters to a completely drawn position. I have to revisit the games above post, but an obscure and strange non-GM comes to mind.


IMHO, saving lost positions (albeit brilliantly) may not be as impressionable as a slugfest which peters to a draw. I'll take a look at the draw in the US Championship, but I believe Mr. X is driving at the principle of the matter. Interesting debate.

Okay, it's past $1500 total now! I suggest a 60/30/10 split into three prizes. That pretty much guarantees a first brilliancy prize of at least $1000 assuming a little more trickles in.

I'd also suggest that the loser gets 20%, which isn't enough to inspire collusion, although I guess a couple of nefarious players could always concoct a beautiful sequence and split the prize on the sly.

When you save a clearly lost position, most of the time it's due to at least some considerable error on your opponent's part. It seems odd and maybe even somewhat insulting to reward a player for losing a won game, especially if he played brilliantly getting there and then chucked the win.

However, there are rare exceptions where perhaps one player starts with a brilliant offense and then the opponent later on comes up with an equally brilliant counter. That's more of a "complicated battle" where tide rose and then fell back.

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on May 15, 2007 4:18 PM.

    2007 US Ch Brilliancy Prize Tracker was the previous entry in this blog.

    Mtel Masters 2007 r6 is the next entry in this blog.

    Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.