Greengard's ChessNinja.com

Shulman Leads Foxwoods

| Permalink | 49 comments

With much of the attention on visiting dignitaries like Loek van Wely and top seed Hikaru Nakamura, US champion Yury Shulman has moved out to an impressive 5.5/6 score in the powerful Foxwoods Open at the casino resort of the same name in Connecticut. He leads alone with Shabalov, Akobian, Lenderman, and young Robert Hess a half-point back. Hess made news in the fifth round by beating Nakamura from the black side. It's a nine-round event with a $10,000 first prize.


It looks like Hess is on his way to his final GM norm if he keeps it up... Although looking at the crosstables, he's only played one foreigner so far, so I assume he needs to play another foreign opponent to be norm eligible?

Robert Hess is a much bigger talent than nakamura!!

Hess is playing well right now, but Nakamura has the talent and experience advantage. Round 8 is starting soon (you can follow live by following Mig's link), Alex Lenderman has 4 wins in a row and is playing white against Yury Shulman with a good chance to take the overall lead.

Jorge Sammour Hasbun is 5/7 the only not titled player. Isn't this the guy that won Dos Hermanos 3 years in a row? Didn't everyone (Ronen and Nakamura) Accuse him of cheating?


Mig did a piece on him a couple of years ago. He's won 3 and drawn three thus far at Foxwoods.

I had an odd experience with Jorge Sammour Hasbun many years ago when he was a small child and went by the name of Jorge Zamora Jr.

He left the playing hall after each move and usually someone from his family (who was also playing in the tournament) would leave the hall with him. I suspect that there was cheating, but I was not able to prove anything.

The Director of the tournament (Carol Jarecki) seemed more interested in preserving his reputation of being a gifted kid than in checking into the integrity of the game being played.

Dear Noyb,
Your little story is riddled with holes.
1. 'Usually someone from his family would leave the hall with him'- this guy was essentially playing both his game and analysing your game, if you are to be believed. Did this other guy lose his own game on time?
2. 'The TD seemed more interested in preserving his reputation......' - You can't read minds so you don't know what was on the TD's mind. Maybe she genuinely thought your accusation/insinuation was baseless? Maybe she found facts to the contrary?
3. This game of yours happened when Zamora already was a formidable blitz player and probably quite strong at slower time controls. Maybe he just beat you fair and square and that was hard for you to take.

I think you need to come up with a more believable story or desist from spreading smears. I'd wager you are one of those little monsters who cry foul whenever they're beaten. I'd also apologise to you if there's any evidence to back your accusation.

"I suspect that there was cheating, but I was not able to prove anything."

Mamedyarov was also suspicious. oh well....

You say you were not able to "prove anything."

What did you do to try to prove that he was cheating?

I wouldn't want to think that, many years later, you would basely accuse a fellow player of cheating. So, what exactly did you say to the TD and what was her response?

I would have thought fact that most casts doubt on noyb's account is that he believes Carol Jarecki to be a man...

Well, going back to chess, if you were up late last night, you would have seen Friedel give Nakamura a very difficult time with just a king and rook against Nakamura's king, rook, and knight. There were no pawns left after Friedel captured Nakamura's remaining pawn ( I think it was the D pawn and it was passed )with his bishop. A kind of cat and mouse went on for many moves until Nakamura decided that Friedel knew his stuff and a draw was agreed. Great endgame lesson on the use of an active rook for defense, in keeping your king and rook far apart and away from a fork, and on attacking from behind or from the side. Great stuff worth staying up for.

Has no one noticed Ray Robson? He is doing quite well, only losing to Akobian, last time I checked.

Yes! Isn't there a chance for norms for alot of people if they get the lucky gm/foreigner pairings with right results? Certainly Hess and Lenderman but also Vigorito and Robson and others.

The news out of Foxwoods, is that Robert Hess is America's newest Grandmaster! Hurrah!

A great performance by Hess, and I hope it holds, but let's let FIDE award the title first. I remember too well the day a few years back when Ben Finegold became America's newest Grandmaster.

Finegold had the TD switch his round 9 and 11 results to fake making the round 9 score cutoff. He never achieved his third GM norm.

I think you should provide some corroborating evidence for your cheating accusation, or, if the reality is that you have no real proof, and it was just only an emotionally bitter memory that you’ve carried all these years for some painful loss, perhaps it’s time for you to let it go and apologize for the unfair attack on the two people you accused.

I clearly stated what I beleived and differentiated that from facts. Were you there? No. So shut up.

Hardy Berger - This is what you can put in your hole...

1. This is a nonsensical arguement. The relative who accompanied Jorge was rated 500+ points higher than either Jorge or myself. So he easily could have given useful advice in addition to playing his game.

2. You certainly can't read minds either and you weren't there. She refused to even look into the fact (and it was a verifiable fact) that he left the board after every move, accompanied by a relative.

3. I can take a loss (happens a LOT). What I wonder about (and I stated this as speculation) was whether there was cheating. If Nakamura wonders whether he cheated and I had cause to wonder... Cheaters are second only to busy-bodies like you who seem to want to pick a fight. If you want won, you've got one!

Luke - I told Jarecki what was happening and she simply refused to investigate. She said he "had a reputation". Well I had a game with him and he was engaged in suspicious behavior. She should have looked into what he and the relative were doing. It is not common practice to leave the hall together after every single move.

BabsonTask - Your point is ridiculous. You cannot even read English. I never said Carol was a man. Where did you get that?!

Sorry to see so many pugnacious and imbecilic nabobs on Chessdirt. But then unfortunately chess does sometimes draw the mentally unstable.

¨But then unfortunately chess does sometimes draw the mentally unstable.¨

We are yours to command Mr President.

noyb -

Have you ever discussed your suspicions with Jorge or his relative?

All you were asked for is some decorum. Don't make grave public allegations on the basis of mere suspicion. Suspicion without proof is just that- suspicion.
Abuse is also no substitute for logical argument and you are yet to make one in this matter. You won't get a fight from me either.

My three cents on this issue:
1) noyb's suspicions (not the same as accusations!) sound somewhat plausible, though essential bits and pieces are missing from the story. Did other opponents of Jorge Zamora face (and report) the same behavior? Did Jorge's relative actually look at his/your game [each time] before they left the tournament hall together? This would indeed be difficult to combine with playing his own game. In team matches, if I have a tough game on board 1 I hardly have time to look at the other positions, let alone to help my weaker teammates - even if I wanted to ... .
2) For the sake of discussion, let's assume that young Jorge Zamora was actually cheating. Didn't we all do wrong things as kids or teenagers occasionally (which might include cheating in high-school exams)? So this has little or no relevance for the playing strength and honesty of today's Jorge Sammour Hasbun.
As a somewhat related example, I would no longer hold Kamsky responsible for things he or his relatives (specifically his father) did a decade or longer ago.
3) Then one may conclude that it was inadequate and not pertinent to bring up the story today, yet IMO the heated reactions were equally absurd - and also noyb's strong language (pugnacious, imbecile, mentally unstable) in his reply. As far as I am concerned, I took noyb's first post as a rather innocent anecdote, nothing more than that ... .

1.'I suspect that there was cheating, but I was not able to prove anything'-that sounds like an allegation, hardly an innocent anecdote.
2.Noyb's suspicions might well be plausible but that's far from the standard required to make public allegations. A similar expectation was applied to Topalov, Danailov, van Breutigam, Mamedyarov etc.
By all means have your suspicions, try to prove them, then go public. We all need to be mindful of the irreversible harm to reputations that can be caused by false public allegations.

Hardy, I would define noyb's quote as an "opinion", not a public allegation. And it is rather in his favour that, unlike the other names you mentioned, he does not even try to come up with questionable supporting evidence ("my opponent declined a draw offer", "he consistently played computer moves" - not as relevant a decade ago ...).
That being said, while everyone is entitled to his opinions (so far you seem to agree), maybe it is unwise to make them public, certainly many years after the game. And noyb's statement was less 'innocent' than a [grammatically] similar one such as "I suspect my opponents 15th move was a home-prepared novelty, but I cannot prove it [here of course rather: it may have been over-the-board improvisation]."
However, "innocent" in my post referred to the fact that the game (incident) happened 1) many years ago, 2) when Jorge was still a kid. The rest of my post is hypothetical "for the sake of argument":
I repeat that even if young Jorge was cheating, this does not mean that adult Jorge is also cheating (message to everyone who fully believes noyb's insinuations, including noyb himself ...). At the same time stating what should be obvious ... . And - one step further - if Jorge had been found guilty at the time and banned for two years, he could still return to the chess scene thereafter and get, at the very least, the benefit of doubt. [I guess a kid would/should get away with a warning the first time, but his relative should be punished more severely].

Thomas -

noyb got online and specifically named Zamora as someone who he suspected of cheating. He also implicated one of Zamora's relatives as an accomplice in the suspected cheating. He gave the name of the tournament director who, according to noyb, didn't want to check into his allegations that Zamora and his relative may have been cheating.

Sounds like a public allegation to me.

OK, I will not further go into semantics - I am not a native speaker (unlike you and Hardy Berger?). I never said that noyb deserves a beauty prize; it is also slightly 'fishy' that he mentions several names but remains anonymous himself [unless noyb is his true name, known in the US chess scene].
As similar recent accusations by GM Tiviakov turned out to be largely unfounded (or at least much exaggerated), it would be interesting to have an independent on-site report. But I guess Carol Jarecki doesn't even remember that incident many years ago ... .

¨In team matches, if I have a tough game on board 1 I hardly have time to look at the other positions, let alone to help my weaker teammates - even if I wanted to ... .¨
You said your rating was about 1900 , what kind of competition has you on board 1?
My imagination is playing with my head every time i try to picture your ¨weaker teammates¨.

Yes, because team chess below the GM level just doesn't exist.

Not at all , but in that particular example it seems that Thomas find difficult for everybody what could be only difficult for him.

I like to cheat very much. In critical positions I sneak away from the board and seek advice from my beloved pocket Fritz. A helpful friend also gives me subtle hints while I am sat at the board. I am a very proud cheater.

At night time while I sip my mug of cocoa, I savour the rating points that I have gained from my cheating ways. I recommend it very much.

I was kidding. I am not a cheater! Really I am not! I protest my innocence!!

Thomas, your team mates must be blessed to have you playing on board one. The comforting reassurance that this must give them is priceless. In a way you are a father figure to those other players and it is only fitting that you coddle them from time to time. I think you should administer some group hugs before every match.

Of course team chess below GM level exists. Many ordinary chess clubs play in local leagues where teams may consist of four or five boards.

Give Thomas a break! ELO grades go way below 1900. And I wouldn't sneer at weaker players until i got to 2600.

Or maybe the team Captain just played around with the board order and had Kramnik on board 2. What does this matter anyway? The chess world is a fountain from which both the elephant and the gnat may drink.

The GMs are making a living from the 'Gnats'. Most average players are just making up the numbers in these weekend open tournaments in terms of the prize money. In a way, the GMs are parasites, leeching every cent of hard earned money that has been paid by the average player. Yes, I can confirm that Hikaru Nakamura is a parasite!

Manu, in any case you succeeded in starting an interesting discussion (or maybe it was me). In the context of my previous post, "tough game" mostly means having to concentrate on your own game, with little time available for other things: reading the newspaper, flirting with female spectators (even if any were around watching an amateur chess match), spending time at the bar, ... or indeed having a more than casual look at the other boards.
In this respect, playing an opponent of comparable strength is tough at all levels. I usually have opponents rated 1800-2000, occasionally higher. And I happen to play for a rather inhomogenous team (only team of a small club), so the lowest boards [our team competition has eight of them] are rated 1400-1600 - with the total rating difference approaching the 500 points quoted by noyb earlier on.
BTW, calling my teammates "weak" could be considered an insult, "weaker" (at least in my understanding of the English language) is simply a fact. Manu, you consider an ELO difference of 20-50, maybe 100 points between Topalov and other players already highly significant ... .

¨BTW, calling my teammates "weak" could be considered an insult, "weaker" (at least in my understanding of the English language) is simply a fact¨

¨Weaker¨ than you isn´t a compliment either, is it?
But that is not the point ,it is your use of your own understanding as an example what i find a little shallow .

"Lower rated" would have been a more neutral and factual term, but do I have to choose my words THAT carefully? My teammates aren't offended (that I know), but Manu [many miles away, not knowing any of us] is offended on their behalf ... .
But as you said, that's not the main point. The context was: Is it possible to play one game AND provide _detailed_ advice on another game (every single move!) at the same time? For me it wouldn't be possible, and yes I generalize from my own experience - so far noone else has commented "weak Thomas cannot, but for me it would be no problem".
BTW, for what it's worth: my rating is presently 1930 and used to be in the 2000-2100 range. What about you Manu ?

Mine is 1300 but it keeps growing since i read your posts.

"provide _detailed_ advice on another game (every single move!)"
Whoever heard of such a thing, where does this happen or even come into question? A few hints would be enough to comprise cheating.
@Cheater: you are not enjoying your experience enough. Savouring your misdeeds alone is indeed delicious, but having other cheaters around for tea and biscuits and giggling together over stolen rating points, swapping suggestions on how to con the next sucker etc is a far more exhilarating experience.

The funny thing is that Manu, who is even weaker (by elo points) than the last board on Thomas' team, is mocking him about his weaker partners. Way to portray oneself in a chess site. Guess who will say he was just joking...

¨ Way to portray oneself in a chess site. ¨
¨ Guess who will say he was just joking... ¨
Who ?

If you can't guess I'm afraid i can't help you

Chesshire cat, I fully agree with you - but this (as well as most of what I wrote in this thread) referred to noyb's original post:
"He left the playing hall after each move and usually someone from his family (who was also playing in the tournament) would leave the hall with him." [granted, 'usually' could also mean "at least every second move" ...].
Alez, actually I think (or hope) that Manu was joking - but maybe I am wrong ... .

Oooh, it was a test...
I thought you were just repeating the last answer i gave you the last time you steped near me.
But, please don t leave me in the shadow , Who?

It's cooler in the shadow, where you apparently stepped misteriously. Keep thinking.

Sorry i didnt mean to hurt you , i just wasnt in the mood.

I visited this page first time to get info on people search and found it Very Good Job of acknowledgment and a marvelous source of info......... Thanks Admin! http://www.reverse-phone-look-up.net

Twitter Updates

    Follow me on Twitter



    About this Entry

    This page contains a single entry by Mig published on April 11, 2009 3:30 PM.

    Broke in Budapest was the previous entry in this blog.

    Pirate Killing Monday is the next entry in this blog.

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