If two players have a substantially different playing ability, why would the stronger player be willing to bid a 'substantial' amount for white? Won't a much stronger player be able to win as black as well?

I think it's worth very large time odds to get white at the top level. I suspect Carlsen would immediately be by FAR the best player in the world if he gave everyone 60 minutes to 2 hour odds and always had white.

I don't understand why you think it's a handicapping system at all. I don't understand why you think bidding pawns for white (if this made sense) would be a handicapping system either. You're handicapping WHITE, not either player.

Yeah I'm totally confused also.

I predicted it.

Hikaru Nakamura 2009 US Champion.

Viva La Naka



Also great choice at playing the Fried Liver , which I'm nearly 100% positive that Friedel never saw coming. Great surprise choice and I'm sure that led to Friedel playing in accurately. Go Naka!

Because of my perception of the consequences of it that players would only be willing to offer substantial handicaps when facing weaker players - thus basically changing nothing about the status quo except giving weaker player time or color odds when facing stronger players.

I still don't get your argument I'm pretty sure that when two strong players play, there will be a significant bidding war to have white. Like I said, I think Anand would completely destroy anyone in the world in a long match with 1 hours and white vs 2 hours and black.

I think another issue would be that it would effectively reduce the time control. At the top levels, players would be willing to pay a lot of minutes to play white, even against comparable players.

There might be a complicated argument about the relative value of time and color versus ratings spread, but at the highest levels, playing White is a huge edge, and I don't see why players wouldn't pay for the privilege. When the rating disparity is large, the stronger player often wins with Black without any time edge...

Still, adding a time-bidding dimension for every game seems unpleasant to me; players should expect to play white and black. I'm much more partial to adjusting the swiss system for championships like this. Double round robin seems like the best way to avoid all of these difficulties, if only there was the time and money for such an event.

Perhaps a two-stage tournament starting as a swiss and then finishing as a round-robin between the top players? Surely someone has done this before...and on its face it doesn't seem like it would take many more rounds to make it work. So after six rounds here, take the top six players and then maybe four more rounds would be required to fill out the round-robin part of the cross-table.

Whatever leads to good chess games...

btw this is the reason why I think it should only happen once per tourney, to equalize color fairness.

yea i like his choice too, those positions definitely favour him.

although to be nitty i think the fried liver is only if black plays Nxd5 and then white goes Nxf7

Then what is the opening called if White doesn't do Nxf7?

What's black's plan after 41. Kb7 in the Hess game? I see the b5+ b4 idea, but is there a clean way to draw it?

ok i checked on fics. after 4...d5 5.exd5, if black plays 5...Nxd5 then 6.Nxf7 is the Two Knights: Fegatello (Fried Liver) Attack.

According to most sources the best move is 6.d4 not Nxf7, which is apparently called the Two Knights: Lolli Attack.

what friedel played, 5...Na5 is apparently called Two Knights: Morphy Variation (5...Na5)

I'm bored so I checked more options:

4.Ng5 is just called Two Knights: 4.Ng5

5...Nd4 is called Two Knights: Fritz Variation

5...b5 Two Knights: Ulvestad Variation

6.Bb5+ (as in the game) is Two Knights: Morphy, Polerio (6.Bb5+)

8.Qf3 (instead of the game's Bd3) is called Two Knights: Morphy, Bogoljubow Variation

6.Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nh3 is Two Knights: Morphy, Steinitz Variation
9.Nf3 is Two Knights: Morphy, Main Line 9.Nf3, which has even more names deeper in the variation, but I probably managed to bore everyone already

Also instead of 4...d5, 4...Bc5 is the Two Knights: Traxler (Wilkes-Barre) Variation.


PS my dad's 4...Nxe4?!! (it's actually playable-ish) is not named

lol at not being named.

lol @ Fegatello cuz it sounds funny

I talked to my master-level friend who is pretty experienced with 1.. e5 and he said he prefers the 5.. Nd4 Fritz Variation over what Friedel played.

Hikaru Nakamura won a cool $40,000 from winning the U.S. Championship. $35.000 for first and a $5,000 1st place bonus.

Maybe he buys into the WSOP Main Event now, haha.

Here are Final Standings with Payouts:

http://saintlouischessclub.org/US-Ch...2009-Standings

A two-stage round-robin event would also be possible. 24 players, so you have 4 groups of 6 (by seeding) who play a round-robin with one player progressing from each group, tie breaks if necessary. Then round-robin or double round-robin for the 4 players who have got through = 8 or 11 rounds. If you don't want to send the 20 other guys home, then treat it like a Swiss from there on (4 players have withdrawn, keep the scores and pairing history from the first 5 rounds).

I don't think the Swiss system is so totally broken that it needs fixing though. Yes, the strong players may have to play some weaker players, but if you don't want that to happen why invite the weaker players? Some of the excitement has been moved back from round 9 to rounds 6 and 7, but those matches are still crucial (and this would also happen in a round-robin). A 12-man round robin with some reasonable qualification criteria would be a strong tournament without excluding anyone who has a genuine chance to win it.

It was a bit unfortunate that Nakamura got Brooks with black in round 8 and then white against Friedel who couldn't put up any resistance either.

Maybe even increasing the field to 30 players could be an improvement because the weaker players would be playing among themselves more often, and not influence the outcome of the tournament as much (like mediocre players being paired against weak players, floating up and then presenting no challenge for the tournament favorites). So even filling up with some weaker IMs could have made the field a bit tougher for the top players.

Also,i think there are some strong US players that could have played (Kudrin, Woitkjewicz, Yermolinsky, Seirawan come to mind though i'm not sure if the latter two are still active).

24 players for a 9 round swiss is certainly close to the bottom end of the acceptable field size.

He died three years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksander_Wojtkiewicz

oops sry looks like im out of touch. Thx.

Josh has been playing the 2 Ns defense his entire career, hes probably more of an expert in it than all but a handful of players in the US.

Probably true, but he didn't look especially well prepared to play against 8. Bd3. The Rb8-b4 plan was probably bad. Naka certainly held that opinion in the post-game interview, but he's not exactly modest.

Oh, and getting to see the last two rounds live was awesome. Here are some random observations:

-Sutovsky, Kamsky's second, gave Gata an enthusiastic 'good luck' high five before each round. Pretty hilarious.

-Nakamura is incredibly arrogant

-Shulman is incredibly nice.

-Akobian is an extremely stylish dresser, always wearing designer jeans and button down shirts.

-Anna Zatonskih is pretty hot irl. Much more attractive than her online photos would lead you to believe.

I was there for just one day, the Thursday before the break. I agree 100% about Zatonskih. My wife was there as well and said basically the same thing about Akobian. Kamsky looked too damn serious and focused.

I'm going to be biased towards Nakamura since I know him personally, but the interviews were pushy and he was pretty honest. People are either going to like him or not. One thing is clear, he's talented, he's fun to watch and he's not like the other 75% of Russian immigrated GM's.

Nakamura was definitely the best player there. 7/9 against that field is impressive.

I concur.

Kamsky did always seem extremely serious and focused. That's why the pre-round high five was so awesome.


I should have included my standard disclaimer when criticizing Naka's attitude. He's 21, already has two national championship wins and he's top 100 in the world, coming from a country that doesn't produce a lot of chess talent. It's extremely understandable that he's arrogant. It would be hard as hell to be anything other than arrogant given the above. That doesn't mean his attitude is okay. I certainly hope and expect that as he matures as a person, his attitude will mellow. Does that make sense? Oh, and 100% agree about him being incredibly talented and producing great, entertaining games.