If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I didn't realize I had stumbled into the Climate Change thread... :o
Actually, the Twilight Zone would be a better name for that. The weather is what you see. The long term climate, and possible affects, is only limited by your imagination.
The super exciting 11 move draw was between Benjamin - Bojkov. I thought I was going to pee myself when the 1/2 - 1/2 went up on the screen. It was the best 11 move draw I've ever seen. Maybe we should have a contest to find an 11 move, 22 ply games which was more exciting.
all ended in draws when a win for either side was worth thousands of dollars, a draw was worth $255, and a loss nothing. Certainly seems like it would have been worthwhile to play to the death, and only the last of those 3 seems to have met this description. No "GM draws" but certainly I think they could have played on.
They played on for a good amount of time...All of their games were agreed drawn in positions where it was, in my opinion at least, drawn. They already proved themselves by getting to that position, and each side was clearly playing hard for a win during the middlegame, but sometimes skill is just equally matched. If they were to play on they would only risk mistakes, its extremely unlikely/impossible either side could outplay the other in those positions.
It's also very easy to urge them to play on as an onlooker.
In doing so they risk making a stupid mistake and losing, as they are not likely to win against the strong opponent they are playing. Each game played it to the point where it could be declared drawn (not a GM draw), and a draw is a fair result to reward both players for their efforts.
I don't see any problem with it, as there were tremendous fighting games throughout the entire tournament on the top boards, as I believe was mentioned above.
They played on for a good amount of time...All of their games were agreed drawn in positions where it was, in my opinion at least, drawn. They already proved themselves by getting to that position, and each side was clearly playing hard for a win during the middlegame, but sometimes skill is just equally matched. If they were to play on they would only risk mistakes, its extremely unlikely/impossible either side could outplay the other in those positions.
Aman, I don't know you, you may be a nice and intelligent guy, so I don't want my criticism that follows to seem overbearing. It's not personal at all, why would it be? You probably love chess, and I hope what I've written here is going to get you thinking, and maybe you'll see that safe, drawish chess isn't good chess and never should be. Here are my criticisms:
Why don't we just agree that the opening position is "in my opinion at least, drawn" and not play any moves at all?
Who says it is "skill" that is equally matched? If one player is playing 100% safe, risk-free moves, and the other player complies by doing the same, is that "skill"? No, it is simply gutless play matched with gutless play.
Are the games played just to avoid risking mistakes? Is that what chess is coming to? The game is in enough trouble without such passive thinking, which only makes the appeal of chess (at least to outsiders) LESS. If chess is to grow, it must appeal to outsiders MORE, and that means more risk taking.
In doing so they risk making a stupid mistake and losing, as they are not likely to win against the strong opponent they are playing. Each game played it to the point where it could be declared drawn (not a GM draw), and a draw is a fair result to reward both players for their efforts.
If we had perfect, flawless computer engines playing each side, a draw is a "fair result" for all games between them. Risking making a mistake -- stupid or otherwise -- is part of what makes life interesting, and that's what people want to see in any sport they witness. So it should be with chess.
We need to DISCOURAGE the kind of play that avoids risks. Do you see tennis players at Wimbledon simply hitting the ball in the most risk-free manner possible to their opponent, thus resulting in in 125-stroke rallies where finally one player hits the top of the net and the ball doesn't go over? No... they make aggressive shots whenever they can, going for the lines or the corners, because they want to WIN. And that is what spectators like. Safe, risk-free chess has one overbearing characteristic: it kills spectator interest.
Now, this is an opportunity for me to do what I do best: formulate a new idea. The problem with draws in chess is that they can be agreed upon at any point, including after just 11 moves each. That needs to be eradicated. So the first part of my idea is: no agreed draws, ever.
Second part of my idea: what do we do about games that are lackluster in character and seem headed for an inevitable draw by, say, 3 time repetition or stalemate? Because the ultimate goal is for draws to be rare, like tie games in the NFL or CFL.
3 time repetition is something that could occur at any time, and if we outlaw agreed draws, players could mutually play into 3 time repetition instead. So here's an idea to tackle 3 time repetition: instead of a 3 time repetition giving a player a chance to claim a draw, make it trigger a new rule. The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having occurred, the player on the move shall have the right and the obligation to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King. This shall constitute that player's move. The opposing player now has the right and the obligation to respond with the same type of move: taking one of his / her captured pieces and placing it on the board on any empty square provided it does not give check to the opposing King. Once these two moves are completed, play continues as normal, until such time as another 3 time repetition should occur.
What this means is, if a 3 time repetition is imminent, both players need to assess what pieces they can place on the board and where, and what it would do to the position. If it would totally destroy one player's position, that player will do whatever must be done to avoid 3 time repetition.
If we eliminate agreed draws, and we eliminate 3 time repetition draws (and make 3 time repetition much more exciting in the process), the only chance for a draw in chess is insufficient mating material for both sides or stalemate. Thus draws should become very rare indeed. But not totally impossible.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The problem with draws in chess is that they can be agreed upon at any point, including after just 11 moves each. That needs to be eradicated. So the first part of my idea is: no agreed draws, ever.
Second part of my idea: what do we do about games that are lackluster in character and seem headed for an inevitable draw by, say, 3 time repetition or stalemate? Because the ultimate goal is for draws to be rare, like tie games in the NFL or CFL.
3 time repetition is something that could occur at any time, and if we outlaw agreed draws, players could mutually play into 3 time repetition instead. So here's an idea to tackle 3 time repetition: instead of a 3 time repetition giving a player a chance to claim a draw, make it trigger a new rule. The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having occurred, the player on the move shall have the right and the obligation to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King. This shall constitute that player's move. The opposing player now has the right and the obligation to respond with the same type of move: taking one of his / her captured pieces and placing it on the board on any empty square provided it does not give check to the opposing King. Once these two moves are completed, play continues as normal, until such time as another 3 time repetition should occur.
What this means is, if a 3 time repetition is imminent, both players need to assess what pieces they can place on the board and where, and what it would do to the position. If it would totally destroy one player's position, that player will do whatever must be done to avoid 3 time repetition.
If we eliminate agreed draws, and we eliminate 3 time repetition draws (and make 3 time repetition much more exciting in the process), the only chance for a draw in chess is insufficient mating material for both sides or stalemate. Thus draws should become very rare indeed. But not totally impossible.
Regarding the 3 time repetition rule I'm proposing above: if the move that creates the 3 time repetition is a move that puts the opposing King in check, then dropping a piece on the board is still an obligation of the player in check if it can eliminate the check. If that isn't possible, then the player to move must get out of the check by other means (no claiming of a draw by 3 time repetition allowed, with an exception described below), and now the other player has the right and the obligation to drop a piece on the board, and then the first player has the right and the obligation to do the same.
If the situation is such that the player in check makes a move to get out of check and puts the other player in check in the process (extending the 3 time repetition), now THAT player has the first right and the obligation to drop a piece to eliminate the check, and then the first player must respond with dropping a piece onto the board also.
If that isn't possible -- i.e., if the two players are making repetitive moves that put each other in check, and no dropping of a piece to eliminate either check is possible -- then and ONLY then is the game declared a draw by 3 time repetition.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Why don't we just agree that the opening position is "in my opinion at least, drawn" and not play any moves at all?
because that's a retarded opinion
We need to DISCOURAGE the kind of play that avoids risks.
don't speak for others, you inferior human controlled slime. p much the lowest specimena are those who speak for a body when they have no authority to do so
Now, this is an opportunity for me to do what I do best: formulate a new idea.
...
The new rule says: upon 3 time repetition having occurred, the player on the move shall have the right and the obligation to take any one of his / her captured pieces and place it on the board, on any empty square provided that it does not give check to the opposing King.
this is quite literally the stupidest idea i have EVER heard
If we eliminate agreed draws, and we eliminate 3 time repetition draws (and make 3 time repetition much more exciting in the process), the only chance for a draw in chess is insufficient mating material for both sides or stalemate. Thus draws should become very rare indeed. But not totally impossible.
and in the case of two people playing equally and reaching a position that's just entirely blocked off, the players will shuffle their pieces around for thousands of moves until one of them is forced to repeat the position AND HIS OPPONENT WILL GET TO BRING A PIECE BACK FROM THE DEAD. THANK YOU FOR SAVING CHESS, PAUL BONHAM
everytime it hurts, it hurts just like the first (and then you cry till there's no more tears)
don't speak for others, you inferior human controlled slime. p much the lowest specimena are those who speak for a body when they have no authority to do so
...
this is quite literally the stupidest idea i have EVER heard
Well, you're the best joke on ChessTalk and we're all waiting breathlessly to news of your commitment... but nevertheless, thank you for the compliments.
When I write that we need to discourage the kind of play that avoids risks, I'm not doing so with any kind of "authority". Anyone and everyone is free to disagree with me. But meanwhile, the complaints of non-fighting draws in chess continue unabated.
and in the case of two people playing equally and reaching a position that's just entirely blocked off, the players will shuffle their pieces around for thousands of moves until one of them is forced to repeat the position AND HIS OPPONENT WILL GET TO BRING A PIECE BACK FROM THE DEAD. THANK YOU FOR SAVING CHESS, PAUL BONHAM
You're welcome.
The future ain't what it used to be. (Yogi Berra)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Regarding the 3 time repetition rule I'm proposing above: if the move that creates the 3 time repetition is a move that puts the opposing King in check, then dropping a piece on the board is still an obligation of the player in check if it can eliminate the check. If that isn't possible, then the player to move must get out of the check by other means (no claiming of a draw by 3 time repetition allowed, with an exception described below), and now the other player has the right and the obligation to drop a piece on the board, and then the first player has the right and the obligation to do the same.
If the situation is such that the player in check makes a move to get out of check and puts the other player in check in the process (extending the 3 time repetition), now THAT player has the first right and the obligation to drop a piece to eliminate the check, and then the first player must respond with dropping a piece onto the board also.
If that isn't possible -- i.e., if the two players are making repetitive moves that put each other in check, and no dropping of a piece to eliminate either check is possible -- then and ONLY then is the game declared a draw by 3 time repetition.
Possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Who says it is "skill" that is equally matched? If one player is playing 100% safe, risk-free moves, and the other player complies by doing the same, is that "skill"? No, it is simply gutless play matched with gutless play.
Did you even watch the games...those were some hard fought out positions, certainly nothing gutless or safe about them, in the end they were widdled down to more clear positions. Positions that were clearly drawn in the eyes of both players, I don't see any more reason needed to agree upon a draw. Both players agree it is a draw after fighting hard, they are playing for money and for good games, they got both of those. They are not playing to appease the spectators, you should watch the last board in the U1600 section then I think, probably won't find ''gutless play'' there.
Risking making a mistake -- stupid or otherwise -- is part of what makes life interesting
Yes but they have already undertook this risk by playing 25 moves. At some point you stop taking risks. Any businessman will tell you this.
Joel Benjamin shows up to a casino with 1$ and turns it into 1$ million. Then he is asked to play double or nothing. Paul Bonham urges Joel Benjamin to do it, because it would be fun to watch, but Joel Benjamin has a brain and has already done extremely well to reach 1$ million so he decides to keep his winnings and be ''gutless.''
You have to understand that preserving a victory is something that happens in every sport (soccer ball possession, hockey dump-ins and smothering the puck, basketball fouling near the end, golf trying to par the last few holes) so I don't think an onlooker has any place to criticize what would be more 'fun to watch.' They play for themselves, not for you, you just get to watch.
With the exception of Nakamura of course, he plays for the fans. ;)
What i am trying to understand is why the 2Bs went for a quick draw. 1. Are they friends? 2. They respect each other's ability 3. They are tired or 4. They want to ensure thier prize earnings?
Maybe I can share some insight, at least from GM Bojkov's side...
In his lecture last night at Annex Chess Club, GM Bojkov said (about having white in round 8 against GM Sambuev) that it was his last chance to win, because it was going to be very hard to win with black in round 9 if his opponent didn't want to win either.
So basically GM Bojkov played fighting chess in round 8, knowing that he might not get the chance to in round 9.
They played on for a good amount of time...All of their games were agreed drawn in positions where it was, in my opinion at least, drawn.
Fair enough, the games looked reasonable and it's not like they were agreed drawn in dynamic middlegames. Still, there were some rather unbalanced endings that certainly could have been played out.
It's also very easy to urge them to play on as an onlooker.
Well, obviously. What's your point?
In doing so they risk making a stupid mistake and losing, as they are not likely to win against the strong opponent they are playing.
The point is that the difference between a draw and a loss is $250. The difference between a draw and a win is like $4000. So, playing on, from a strictly monetary perspective, is a no brainer.
Further, when you play on, you don't just risk making a stupid mistake - your opponent is theoretically just as likely to make a stupid mistake. So, if you're confident in yourself, why not play on?
Maybe I can share some insight, at least from GM Bojkov's side...
In his lecture last night at Annex Chess Club, GM Bojkov said (about having white in round 8 against GM Sambuev) that it was his last chance to win, because it was going to be very hard to win with black in round 9 if his opponent didn't want to win either.
So basically GM Bojkov played fighting chess in round 8, knowing that he might not get the chance to in round 9.
Hi Marcus, your input is very much appreciated.
GM Bojkov made the best move in the crucial stage of the tournament.
The game GM Benjamin - GM Bojkov is a grandmaster draw and answered my questions 2,3,4.
Congratulations to the organizers for a very successful tournament.
I like the pairing system used in this year's edition.
Thousand thanks to all the organizers for hosting the 2011 Canadian Open in Toronto, but most specially to Mark and David Cohen.
We don't. I think that says something about the caliber of play you are witnessing though.
The point is, how far into the game do you have to get with equal play before you say "Ok, it looks like a draw. Just shake hands and we can all go home." If two NFL teams play one half of football and it's tied 7-7, do we just let them agree to a tie game? Duh!
Possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
That would obviously be because you are ok with the current state of GM level chess, which is full of draws, of which only a few are fighting draws.
Probably the person or persons who first proposed castling rules and en passant rules got reactions like yours, but eventually the evidence was just too strong that chess would be enlivened by these changes.
However, I was thinking today that I left something out of my proposal. What happens if a player who, as I stated in my proposal, is obligated to break a 3-time repetition with a piece drop, but instead either (1) continues the repetition, or (2) breaks the repetition but not by dropping a piece? S/he could be doing this either deliberately or perhaps didn't realize a 3-time repetition had just taken place.
For (1), the opposing player now has the right and the obligation to break the repetition by dropping any one of his or her captured pieces onto an empty square without putting the King in check. Following that move, the other player now must do the same.
However, perhaps both players just continue the repetition and decide to "agree" on a draw. What this means is, for any game that is about to be declared a draw, the TD must be brought over to determine if it is a legitimate draw. The goal is to bring draws down to a bare minimum. So the TD will be very scrupulous in allowing a draw. If the TD sees that both players are just continuing a 3 time repetition without even attempting to drop pieces, he will reinstate the position at the point where the 3 time repetition has just occurred and force the player on the move to drop a piece and continue the game. Players will eventually become aware they can't just agree on draws and will stop trying.
For (2), once the repetition has been broken, the opportunity to play a drop piece is lost, and so the game just continues with no drop piece moves until another 3 time repetition occurs. So in actual fact, the player on the move at the point of a 3 time repetition does not have the total obligation to drop a piece. S/he can instead choose to break the repetition. Either way, the game continues and a draw is not an option.
The draw is only permissible and final when one of 3 things happens, which a TD must verify:
(1) a 3 time repetition has occurred in which the repetitive moves are forced because each player is putting the other in check and their moves are "only" moves -- even a drop piece can't get either player out of check. This is the ONLY 3 time repetition that allows a draw.
(2) Material has been reduced such that neither side has mating material.
Did you even watch the games...those were some hard fought out positions, certainly nothing gutless or safe about them, in the end they were widdled down to more clear positions. Positions that were clearly drawn in the eyes of both players, I don't see any more reason needed to agree upon a draw. Both players agree it is a draw after fighting hard, they are playing for money and for good games, they got both of those. They are not playing to appease the spectators, you should watch the last board in the U1600 section then I think, probably won't find ''gutless play'' there.
I wasn't referring to that particular game, or any particular game. I was being general about non-fighting draws. But again, I bring up the NFL analogy: if two teams are fighting hard and the game is tied with 5 minutes time left, or even at the end of regulation time, there is no chance to "agree" on a tie game. Tie games in the NFL are an abhorrence, and they should be. Ditto for baseball. Even hockey goes to shootouts to try and determine a winner. Why should chess be so accomodating of draws? Especially if it hurts spectator appeal.
Yes but they have already undertook this risk by playing 25 moves. At some point you stop taking risks. Any businessman will tell you this.
Really? Any businessman? Aman, come on, stop digging such holes. Donald Trump, to name just one famous example, NEVER stops taking risks. Business is all about risk, and if a businessman or woman wants to stop taking risks, s/he should just sell everything and retire to the country. And at that point, s/he stops being a business(wo)man.
Joel Benjamin shows up to a casino with 1$ and turns it into 1$ million. Then he is asked to play double or nothing. Paul Bonham urges Joel Benjamin to do it, because it would be fun to watch, but Joel Benjamin has a brain and has already done extremely well to reach 1$ million so he decides to keep his winnings and be ''gutless.''
Now I turn the tables on you: that is the most ridiculous analogy I have ever read. We aren't talking about turning $1 into $1 million here. We are talking about a game between 2 players which starts out from an equal or near-equal position, and which only has 3 possible outcomes. Joel Benjamin must play this final-round game, he can't just walk away and cash his chips like he could at a casino. So he must play the final game. If before the game, Joel knows that by drawing he is guaranteed $1,000 (let's be reasonable here) and by losing he is guaranteed to win no money, of course he's going to shoot for a draw. But he still must play the game! He could try and just continually exchange pieces until no mating material is left for either side, and if his opponent is in the same situation, they could still play a "mutual agreed" draw by exchanging pieces until nothing is left. But they each must still be careful that a position doesn't come up in which trading the pieces doesn't suddenly leave them in a losing position. Because if any opportunity to win arises, either player may decide to go for it. Even this (convoluted) example is still better than an agreed draw after 11 moves. Make them earn it.
You have to understand that preserving a victory is something that happens in every sport (soccer ball possession, hockey dump-ins and smothering the puck, basketball fouling near the end, golf trying to par the last few holes) so I don't think an onlooker has any place to criticize what would be more 'fun to watch.' They play for themselves, not for you, you just get to watch.
With the exception of Nakamura of course, he plays for the fans. ;)
Sure, preserving a victory, I wasn't saying anything against that. Why did you bring that up? If one player is ahead, of course s/he will try and preserve the victory. Duh! Stick to the issue here, which is agreed draws or non-fighting draws. None of the sports you mention allow "agreed" ties or draws. Neither should chess. But if the play is drawish, a mechanism is needed to minimize the opportunity for draws by drastically reducing the 3 time repetition draw, and that's what I'm proposing.
We accept that an NHL hockey game, hard fought and evenly matched throughout, can still produce a winner because of a last-minute fluke goal or even a shootout goal. We should likewise accept that an evenly matched, hard fought chess game can similarly end by a drop-piece rule that turns a 3 time repetition into a winning advantage for one player. Just live with it. The world isn't going to end. The spectators will love it.
And while you belittle spectators, it is only spectators from the general public that can turn chess into a much more successful enterprise, financially speaking. If you're against spectators in chess, then you're against any kind of future growth for chess. Which makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
The draw is only permissible and final when one of 3 things happens, which a TD must verify:
(1) a 3 time repetition has occurred in which the repetitive moves are forced because each player is putting the other in check and their moves are "only" moves -- even a drop piece can't get either player out of check. This is the ONLY 3 time repetition that allows a draw.
(2) Material has been reduced such that neither side has mating material.
(3) Stalemate
Actually, 4 things: forgot about the 50 move rule.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Re: Rd 9: GM Benjamin - GM Bojkov draw in 11 moves...
Tieing for first in the 2011 Canadian Open - 4200
Tieing for 4th in the 2011 Canadian Open - 255
The risk of losing in the last round when theres a large sum of guaranteed money to be had - a potential loss of just under 4000 in favor of a potential gain of 3300, which begs the question - why risk it?
Resurrecting chess pieces from the grave to avoid 3 move perps in drawn positions when your own chess play is several hundred tiers below certain grandmasters - priceless
Tieing for first in the 2011 Canadian Open - 4200
Tieing for 4th in the 2011 Canadian Open - 255
The risk of losing in the last round when theres a large sum of guaranteed money to be had - a potential loss of just under 4000 in favor of a potential gain of 3300, which begs the question - why risk it?
Resurrecting chess pieces from the grave to avoid 3 move perps in drawn positions when your own chess play is several hundred tiers below certain grandmasters - priceless
Re: Rd 9: GM Benjamin - GM Bojkov draw in 11 moves...
So two players, say A and B meet in the final round. The winner gets say $4,000 while the loser gets $0. If they draw then each get $200. The draw, in my opinion, demonstrates a high level of ethical behavior.
There are countries in eastern Europe where the players will step aside and
agree to a decisive result with the winner to be decided by a coin flip and the moneys won to be split equally. Thus each player 'earns' $2,000.
The grandmasters in the Canadian Open did not do this! I respect them for that.
If you want to see high level fighting chess, come to the two or three rounds before the end of the tournament. At the CO you would not have been disappointed.
Tweet
Comment