Official site working and live broadcast started on time and functioning. Woo-hoo! Also on the ICC with audio commentary live from St. Louis with Jen Shahade and Emil Sutovsky. It's open to all, not just ICC members. You can check it out here or from the live page.
Obviously the big matchup today is Shulman-Kamsky, defending champ vs top seed. Nakamura-Hess is the other headliner.
Add: From official site round 3 page: "Unfortunately, IM Anna Zatonskih has been taken ill. Her game against GM Gregory Kaidanov has been postponed until further notice." Bummer. What's the rule on this sort of thing? Opponent's goodwill? There's only one rest day and it's after seven rounds. If a favorite is getting paired as if he/she has less points, that would skew things, right? Meanwhile, full-bodied fights on the top boards. More later. Now go call your mother!
Add: Anna Zatonskih has gall stones, is overnight in the hospital in St. Louis, will probably have surgery tomorrow [actually going to Germany?! according to Polgar], and will obviously drop out of the tournament. The score will be forfeit win for Kaidanov in today's not-played game. There has been a backup replacement on hold and he will join the remaining 23 players for the rest of the event. Doug Eckert from IL. Polgar's site has a little info on him.
Add: The rather undramatic drama around the $64,000 Fischer jackpot prize for a clean score ended today as all three players with 2/2 were besmirched. Kamsky and Shulman played a 30 move draw as Kamsky's Grunfeld again held up well. Hess, the other 2/2, got squeezed like a lemon by Nakamura, who joined the aforementioned and Friedel in the lead on 2.5/3. Friedel beat Benjamin with black. Hess suddenly looked outclassed today, although as I mentioned yesterday he won a nice game with black against his 2700 opponent just a month ago at Foxwoods. Either his novelty 13..Qc7 was a bad blunder or he really misevaluated the resulting position. The extra doubled pawn turns out to be a nice outpost and Black's king is in traffic for the entire game. Very well prosecuted by Nakamura.
14-year-old Robson went for a pawn-down opposite-colored bishop endgame against Akobian but his technique wasn't up to holding it. Shankland somewhat surprisingly decided his bishop pair wasn't worth anything in an endgame against Khachiyan and he took the draw as soon as they hit the 30-move minimum. Krush-Gulko was an early fatality of a glitch in the online viewer, though after the serious problems on the first two days it seems a little abusive to complain about one game not working. Unfortunately, Krush's many fans missed watching her hand the once-mighty Gulko his third bagel in a row. 37.f5! is a star move, good stuff. Brooklyn! Shabalov avoided Gulko's fate by giving Lawton his third loss.
The four leaders meet in tomorrow's fourth round with Kamsky-Friedel and Shulman-Nakamura. Eckert parachutes in to replace Zatonskih and gets Gulko. I'm curious about the whole replacement thing. You don't want someone having a bye every round, I suppose. The official site is also starting to get its content together, if not much in the way of analysis. Don't miss the cool time-lapse vid of Kamsky-Akobian. Love it!
Sevillano was again involved in the longest game of the day, but this time was unable to bamboozle his opponent, Brooks. Sevillano took some commentariat flak for playing on against Lawton in round two in what some players on site described as a trivially drawn position. That might have been it, since they're on a five-second increment, when arbiter Carol Jarecki told Lawton he had to keep his scoresheet up to date. According to a few (anonymous so far) observers, he took most of his remaining time to try to do this and was then told it still wasn't complete/legible. At this point he let his remaining time expire, apparently in protest. It's the arbiter's job to enforce the rules, so let's not chase the "interference" red herring. The main issue seems to be whether or not Lawton should have been exempted from keeping score once his clock got down below five minutes. That's the rule, but what if you have more than five when the arbiter charges you and it goes under five while you're updating your sheet? I don't know if that exact case is covered in the rules, but it seems pretty natural that you have to have a correct scoresheet before continuing. Otherwise, if it were close you could just wait until you got under five and ignore the arbiter.
Scoresheets in top events should be obsolete by now thanks to digital recording technologies, but as we saw in this same event in the first two rounds, those technologies can be as reliable as a sub-prime borrower. Personal scoresheets are also for the players' protection and they both need to be up-to-date to avoid, or to help resolve, disputes. On a related matter, what's up with the 5" increment? That's for rapid, at best. I don't like increments until the final control anyway, at which point I do like them, but five seconds isn't really enough to avoid what increments are supposed to help avoid, mindless blitzing. I don't fault Sevillano for playing on, that's what he's there to do. But a 5" increment isn't mercy, it's torture (or "enhanced interrogation technique" if you prefer). I.e., with a 30" or even a 15" increment in that position you give up trying to win pretty quickly. But with 5" you have an incentive to play on forever since a blunder or time forfeit could easily occur. That said, both players apparently missed a strong move right before the bizarre conclusion. Assuming the score is correct, 88.Rc7 picks up the last black pawn. Probably still drawn, but no longer trivial. Ironically, Black could have won instantly five hours earlier with 20..Nxd4!
Ah, this appeared this evening in the round two release on the official site by the ICC's John Henderson:
"In a footnote to yesterday's round two, local player Charles Lawton discovered the hard way the difference between the standard of play at the U.S. Championship and local tournaments he's more used to ruling the roost in. In a time scramble when he was down to his last 5 minutes, he opted to save valuable seconds by stopping to score his game, only to flagged for an infringement of the rules by chief arbiter Carol Jarecki as she warned him he had to continue to keep a score of the game.
But Lawton lost on time in the ensuing dispute with the arbiter as he tried to keep his score up to date as he fell foul of International FIDE rules (which govern all national championships) and local USCF rules. With FIDE (the French acronym of the governing body of world chess), if you have 5 minutes or less on your clock you still have to keep a score of the game, with USCF rules you do not have to do so."
I believe FIDE also exempts you from keeping score when under five minutes if the increment is less than 30 seconds. (Rule 8.4) But as I said above, if he had more than five minutes when Jarecki intervened, he has only himself to blame. There should be a statement from the arbiter and, if they want, both players, when a dispute like this happens. On the other hand, if nobody files a formal protest it's not up to the organizers or arbiters to martyr themselves for kicks. It would just be nice to have all the information out there from official sites, which too often feel they should sweep disputes under the rug.