The US Open finishes this evening, and at the time of this writing the final results are still not in. However, one of the best games and certainly the biggest upset of the event was the win by im Marc Esserman over the highly rated Dutch gm Van Wely.
Marc had already established a reputation for producing some Tal-like masterpieces and is widely sought after as a teacher.
In the game against the Dutch superstar, Marc sought to get the initiative right from the opening with the Smith Mora Gambit. In my opinion the Dutch player did not play the right way at move 9:
GM VAN WELY
IM MARC ESSERMAN
Here the most prudent course is to play 9...b5 ! and after 10.Bb3 Na5! , trying to exchange the dangerous light-square Bishop as quickly as possible. (I had successfully played like this several years ago in Cappelle La Grande)
HOWEVER, the GM continued with the routine 9...Ng6 10.Bb3!? b5 ?! and then was hit with the sensational 11.Nd5!
Curiously, this has already been seen in atleast half a dozen master games (!), but was probably unknown to the Dutch superstar. The threat of Bb6 is difficult to ignore with 11...Rb8 as after 12.Rc1 Black has little better to do than to take the gift on d5. So Van Wely did not waste time and grabbed the Knight:
All seen before! White rushes to open the centre to expose the Black King to the White pieces. While it is not clear to me that Black is lost, Van Wely's natural moves seem to meet with a convincing refuation:
15...Qf6!? (new) 16.PxP Qxe5 17.Bg5!!
A move of rare beauty! The Bishop gives its life to open up the e-file for a mere check! You have to see the finish to believe it. What a crush! ( Link to some brief notes)
London mayor Boris Johnson (above) has no problems supporting the gay 'equal rights' charity Stonewall. Neither does the ECF --at least up 'til this past Saturday-- when that 'support' stopped dead cold at the public prize-giving ceremonies of the 2011 British Chess Championships. The reason given: the president's graphic t-shirt was deemed 'inappropriate' for the customary photos with the winning juniors! The president was left ''shaking with fury''...
JC de Mooi (above) is the current ECF president--that is, until today when he tendered his resignation. JC is also a popular TV actor and singer. But especially, de Mooi is a conscientious and dedicated human rights activist and supporter of many social issues and charities, including Stonewall, a gay, lesbian and bisexual charity.
Since becoming president of the ECF, JC has been very successful in trying to turn around the image of chess in England. The 2011 British Championship --which just finished-- received a 16,000 pounds personal donation from JC (!) in an attempt to draw the strongest British players and the largest turn out in English chess history. More than 900 participants graced the various tournaments (seniors, juniors, female, absolute, etc)! Everyone was ecstatic.
THEN the shit hit the fan. Despite JC de Mooi having appeared at the championships during the past week sporting the exact same t-shirt in question, AND despite de Mooi having tweeted the day before ''Tomorrow I'm presenting the prizes at the Darwin Strategic British Chess Championships and I'll be proud to wear my @stonewalluk t-shirt!'' the chief arbiter (Lara Barnes) approached the ECF president just minutes before the 9:30 am prize-giving ceremony and challenged his intentions.
''I was just worried that children who had come for chess may be exploited in photo opportunities for a different issue/charity.'' Lara Barnes later wrote on Facebook, after having received nasty emails from people claiming she was a homophobic bitch.
Lara Barnes --who it later turns out was really acting on her own personal initiative-- suggested to JC a really shocking alternative: he could present the adult prizes but let someone else present the prizes to the toddlers. JC--visibly shaken and confused--naturally refused to compromise his principles and stepped down. He watched the whole ceremony from the spectator gallery.
Making matters worse, yesterday was 'Gay Pride Day'!
I suggest the readers take a look at the ECF forum for a more detailed account of the finer points and later developments of this scandal. The ECF forum is the most prominent message board for English chess. The whole scandal has also reached the mass media, including the following account from The Guardian
Chess row over gay rights T-shirt
Chess chief claims he was barred from presenting prizes at British championships because of his Stonewall T-shirt
The president of the English Chess Federation says he was barred from presenting prizes at the British chess championships in Sheffield because he was wearing a gay rights T-shirt.
CJ de Mooi, an actor and a regular on the BBC quiz show Eggheads, said he was left "shaking with fury" over objections to the shirt, which bore the slogan "Some people are gay, get over it", used by gay rights group Stonewall.
De Mooi said he was approached by the championship arbiter, Lara Barnes, prior to the awards ceremony and urged to reconsider his outfit. "They then suggested that it might be better if I just presented prizes to the adults," he said. "I refused. I was either going to present all the prizes or none at all."
Barnes denied asking de Mooi to change his shirt, saying she had merely expressed reservations. "I didn't think that promoting gay rights, which I thoroughly agree with, while presenting prizes to junior chess players was an appropriate thing," she said. "Usually prize-givers for a national event would wear a suit and tie."
De Mooi said he had worn the T-shirt throughout the event without complaints. "None of the parents, none of the kids, said anything to me that wasn't completely positive. Quite a few of them said, 'we love the T-shirt, well done for wearing it'."
Laura Doughty, deputy chief executive of Stonewall UK, said she was puzzled by the furore. "We think our T-shirts are lovely and don't see why anyone would object to anyone wearing one, least of all chess players."
Leonard Barden, the Guardian's chess correspondent, said: "There has never been a dress code before. It's not something that happens in chess, it's supposed to be non-discriminatory."
De Mooi, who has been president of the English Chess Federation for the past two years, said he was angered and baffled: "I was elected president in the first place because English chess was in the absolute doldrums. As a very prominent member of the chess committee has said, I was elected because I do things differently."
Barnes praised de Mooi's efforts to promote chess but said it was improper to mix the game with gay rights: "I've every sympathy with his cause, but I didn't think it was appropriate to have the sentiment on the T-shirt in every photograph with junior chess players – under-10s, under-12s and under-14s – promoting a particular sexuality."
Earlier today--having since yesterday found some time to calm down and clear his mind-- JC de Mooi handed in his resignation as president of the ECF. No doubt JC is looking to contain the scandal from becoming a front-page news item and issued this message on the ECF forum:
''I am a public supporter of Barnardo's (running the Cardiff half marathon) the Albert Kennedy Trust (and am speaking at their youth conference next month as well as running the London Marathon) and until it was forced to close in December, I was the Ambassador for the National Bullying Helpline. I work with children constantly both in the theatre and chess so am always fully CRB checked. I believe this gives some indication as to my views on 'think of the children'
I hope everyone has enjoyed this year's tournament which I, and others, have been working to support financially for a long time (both the Staunton Dinner and Nigel tour made significant contributions to both the Championships and charity) and this matter has not sullied the issue.
I am a passionate person and I know that's one of the main reasons people are able to support me. However, although I don't apologise for who I am, what I choose to promote or how I go about doing that, I may have over reacted on this occasion (despite my 'irritation') and it's unfortunate that something such as this threatens to overshadow a magnificent event that so many people worked for, most far more than me.
With this is mind, I have offered my resignation to the board should they choose to accept for the benefit of the ECF and the future reputation of chess.''--JC
Lara Barnes, for her part, is unrepentant and remains firmly convinced of the correctness of her actions. On the same ECF forum she wrote today:
'' Here is my side of the incident (I am posting against the advice of some, but I am getting hate emails claiming that I am homophobic and need to clear this up).
I spoke to David and Alex before the prize-giving suggesting that the T-shirt in question may not be advisable seeing as children were going to be in photographs with it and the charity in question was promoting a sexuality-based issue. (I personally raised over £200 for the same charity on the Sunday night quiz to 'buy' CJ's membership of John Edwards' team!) I was just worried that children who had come for chess may be exploited in photo opportunities for a different issue/charity.
They were reluctant to speak to CJ about it and I said that I would. I told CJ that we usually dressed up more formally for the prize-giving and that it was only my opinion that his t-shirt may be controversial. He said "well I won't present the prizes then". When I told David Welch this he said that I had made a mistake in his opinion. I then left it to the 'officials' to make any decision. I believe that they still wanted CJ to present the prizes to The British Championship for which he had made a large financial contribution and huge publicity effort. He declined, saying 'all or nothing'.
May I add that, and many of my friends know already, it would be highly hypocritical of me to 'oppose' any gay-equality charity as I have had gay relationships in the past. Any thought of 'anti-gay' anything was never in my mind when I suggested the t-shirt was inappropriate for a national chess championships prize-giving, it was just inappropriate. I have many Wytchwood Brewery T-shirts promoting real ale, but I would not wear them to The British Championships prize-giving. My only fault may have been being naive to the controversy that this brought up.
RE: The Sunday Times article:
• CJ’s claim that he was ‘banned’ from wearing the t-shirt is just untrue.
• There is a dress code for the event, on page 7 of the programme “smart casual”
• He was never asked to ‘take it off’. I only queried whether it was appropriate, had he said ‘yes, I believe it is’ then I would not have had anything further to say at the time and he would have gone ahead with the prize-giving. He is the president of the organisation for which I do voluntary work and I would have bowed to his authority.''--LB
No doubt this scandal will have reprecussions in English chess, and I understand that this evening efforts are being made in the ECF to patch things up and repair the damage. Nobody wants to see JC leave the ECF, and nobody wants to punish anyone involved in the development just minutes before the closing ceremony.
HOWEVER, there are some points in what Lara Barnes writes that raise questions and doubt of the overall sincerity of her behaviour in this unfortunate affair:
The first point is about the timing: why did she wait until just minutes before the closing ceremony (at 9:30 am Saturday) to bring this issue up to the president of the ECF when she could have done so the night before? Was she trying to drop a bomb on him at the last moment so as to create maximum confusion?
It was well known that JC was going to appear in his t-shirt (he tweeted it the day before!) Obviously Lara feels very strongly on the issue of children and their exposure to alternative sexual-lifestyles, but her timing was very inappropriate and irresponsible , to say the least.
The second point has to do with her insistence on bringing up this issue to JC despite her fellow arbiters not wanting to do so. In her own words they were ''reluctant to speak to JC about it''. When she did bring it up and the impasse occurred, a fellow arbiter told her that she had made a ''mistake''.
Lara was clearly alone on this issue when she approached JC. Judging from JC's remarks, Lara's behaviour was perceived to be confrontational. Could it have been that she was not acting within the bounds of her responsibilities as chief arbiter and was instead acting on a personal agenda?
I will keep the readers up to scratch on this scandal as it develops in coming days.
____________________________________________
Oh! I almost forgot to mention...
Mickey Adams defeated Nigel Short 1.5 to 0.5 in the playoffs to become the 2011 British Champion! Congrats to both gladiators!!
One of the strongest championships in recent years--with 12 gms and 7 ims. Mickey Adams and Nigel Short topped their competitors, scoring 8.5 points in 11 rounds. Tomorrow morning will be a play-off to decide which gets the title. (Adams is defending Champion). You can follow the games LIVE at the link given above.
The (2-game) play-off between Mickey and Nigel will commence immediately after the prizegiving. Two Rapidplay games of 20 minutes each + 10 seconds per move will be played. Should there still be a tie; an Armageddon game will then be played.
Alexander Morozevich was born in Moscow in 1977. One of the most respected GMs in the world --Alexander has managed to stay above controversy and scandal--he has an enormous number of fans around the world. His style is very original and many of his games feature surprising counter-attacking themes in otherwise dis-reputed or antiquated opening systems. Especially, Morozevich wins many games with the Black pieces; more so than his colleagues.
Morozevich was ranked as high as number 2 in the world (2008) and has won a large number of tournaments, including the Russian Championship in 2007. He disappeared from active play last year , dissatisfied with some poor results. He went to Qatar to coach. Recently he returned and this summer he played in Biel and finished 2nd , just half a point less than the Norwegian prodigy Carlsen. Later this month he will play in the World Cup. Is he not already the favourite (of the fans, atleast) ?
Below is an interview that Chess Vibes conducted with Morozevich immediately after the Biel tournament. In the interview he talks of the reasons why he left chess last year and why he has come back. Alexander is a modest speaker and it is clear that he has no ego problems. What are the future ambitions of this great player? You will have to watch the video to find out! Enjoy
A six year old goes to the hospital with her grandmother to visit her Grandpa. When they get to the hospital, she runs ahead of her Grandma and bursts into her Grandpa's room...
"Grandpa, Grandpa," she says excitedly, "As soon as Grandma comes into the room, make a noise like a frog!"
"What?" said her Grandpa.
"Make a noise like a frog - because Grandma said that as soon as you croak, We're all going to Disneyland!!!"
Russian super-star Vlad Kramnik mopped up in Dortmund a few days ago ...even though he lost the last round game against the US star Nakamura it made absolutely no difference since he was so far ahead in points. Kramnik has now won the Dortmund tournament a record 10-times! Congrats.
Below is an video interview with Kramnik shortly after his historic win. I found it very interesting , especially because of his modesty and sincerity.
Today on the new website Why Chess? excerpts of a Russian interview were translated. Kramnik talks of many things, including Carlsen, his rating, the future of chess, spectators, culture and more. Enjoy!
Dortmund - "that game" against Hikaru Nakamura
''The motivation in that game was perhaps different. The thing is that in my whole professional career I’ve never scored +6. There aren’t many people other than Kasparov who’ve ever scored +6 in a supertournament. I’ve had +5 a few times, but never +6.
That might have been the motivation – not to post simply a good result, but a truly exceptional one. So perhaps I took too many risks and, for example, rejected all the drawing variations. I didn’t even look at variations where there was perpetual check, because I’d just decided to keep going… I wasn’t intending to sacrifice at all (especially as that’s not the best method of playing for a win against Nakamura), but simply by the point I sacrificed a piece I didn’t have any other sensible plan to play for a win. Nothing at all.
The opening went badly, unfortunately. 23.Nxg5 is a perfectly playable move. Objectively speaking, it’s probably not very good, but I think it’s the kind of thing you can play.''
Ratings and competing with Magnus Carlsen
''I’m quite sceptical about ratings in general. My rating only starts to worry me when it gets dangerously low. I’d put it like that. And 2800 or 2810… Perhaps first place in the rating list might be some sort of motivation for me, but for now that’s quite far off. And other than that – no, it doesn’t play a big role.''
Is being overtaken by Karjakin counts as “dangerously low”?
''No. It was dangerously low when it was 2727 – when I was unwell but nevertheless decided not to decline tournaments in 2005. I participated in a series of tournaments and played terribly. I simply made the crudest of one-move blunders very frequently, and I fell to eighth place on the rating list, with 2727. Now that was becoming dangerously low.
But Sergey getting a little ahead of me – firstly, it’s only a few points. Secondly, it’s clear that the new generation is very strong, there’s powerful competition and no-one’s insured against falling from fourth to sixth and then rising up to third… The whole top ten is very strong. Of course, if my rating falls to something like ninth, then it would begin to concern me.
But third, fourth, fifth – that’s not so significant. Being close to 2800 is a perfectly decent rating. I don’t think I’m playing at Carlsen’s 2825 at the given moment, so…''
Is Carlsen is playing at that rating?
''Overall, yes. I think he selects his tournaments cleverly, and in those tournaments he really does play at 2825. If, let’s say, you take a double round-robin tournament with the top 6 in the rating list, then I’m not convinced he’ll be able to hold onto such a rating. It’s a question of his style of play – he’s very good at cleaning up against the tail-enders. But firstly, that’s a hypothetical debate, because if he’s got that rating it means he’s playing at it.
You can only keep such a high rating or increase it, of course, with very good and clever tournament selection. He’s playing great just now, you can’t deny that, but I think in a match I can compete against and beat almost anyone, including Carlsen. I’ve got chances, let’s put it like that. In tournaments, particularly unbalanced ones – it’s unlikely I can compete long-term with Carlsen. In any given one – or two – then yes.
But overall, in terms of the ability to get a clean sweep against those who are weaker than him he’s of course better. So at the given moment… I can’t say my goal is to be number one on the rating list. It’s pretty unlikely. But getting above 2800 – that’s entirely doable. I just need to improve in one or two areas.''
Mother Russia
A large section of the interview was taken over by topics that are more specifically Russian. For instance, Kramnik has attracted criticism for choosing Dortmund over the World Team Championship in China, and has been accused of a lack of patriotism in some quarters. He responded by noting Dortmund was arranged long before he knew about the Chinese tournament, and that he is, in a sense, the “face” of the tournament. On patriotism he notes he received no money at all from the Russian Chess Federation from 1992 – 2008, and sums it up:
''Our top players didn’t receive a penny, or even the slightest attention. And in reply we nevertheless played for our country, no-one changed federation, and so on. In my view that’s patriotism, as I understand it.''
He notes there’s been a populist note to criticism of the Russian team’s performance in Ningbo (he almost certainly has in mind e.g. Anatoly Karpov calling it “shameful”). Although he accepts not finishing in the top-3 is a failure, he rejected comparisons with how the team used to perform, pointing out things were utterly different when the USSR still existed. The former Soviet states are now Russia's main competition.
On the “lack of a team leader” (a frequent criticism of Kramnik’s role in the Russian team) he says the important thing is playing well, not making rousing speeches. He doubts players nowadays would accept a leader like Kasparov, who would often decide on the team line-up himself.
''If it wasn’t the Russian Championship, if it was simply a tournament under those conditions, then I’d never agree to play. The terms are very low for me. But it’s not a question of that. As I said: it’s Russia and I’m playing for the team, I’m playing under the country’s flag, and of course that’s a slightly different situation.''
Kasimdzhanov, Shipov and Ilyumzhinov’s proposals
Since the perceived failure of the Candidates Matches in Kazan, we’ve had no shortage of suggestions about what needs to change. FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov gave an interview where he talked about moving away from classical chess towards rapid and blitz. Rustam Kasimdzhanov wrote an open letter suggesting no encounter between players should end in a draw, with drawn games replayed at shorter time controls until a winner was found. A couple of days ago Sergey Shipov offered an improvement on Kasimdzhanov’s proposal, suggesting quicker games (to avoid exhaustion) and a points system that still favoured a win in classical chess.
Kramnik’s response could be summed up by an American phrase he uses at one point: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”:
''I don’t entirely understand: what, exactly, is the problem? Take a look, for example, at the tournament in Dortmund. In my opinion it was a very interesting tournament, and an overwhelming majority of the games were hard-fought. Half of the games were drawn, but what’s wrong with an interesting draw? Ok, imagine the game Nakamura and I played ended in perpetual check? So what? Everyone found it interesting and enjoyed it. Where’s the problem?''
''You shouldn’t have a format where draws are relatively favourable to both players – as was the case in Kazan. That was a knockout. The fundamental difference was that it wasn’t actually a match event, but a knockout tournament. I think that format’s simply unacceptable in modern chess, particularly for deciding the classical World Champion, as it’s clear that no-one wants or can allow themselves to take too many risks. You end up with draws and everything’s decided in some chaotic blitz game.''
Kramnik questioned whether it was really necessary to make it so that every encounter between two players ends in a win for one of them:
''I don’t agree with that. I don’t understand why it’s necessary. People play football – draw. A normal result. No-one groans about draws. So you can have a draw but a good match that everyone enjoys watching. It’s an American approach. It seems to me that in principle the kind of audience that simply must have a winner isn’t really our audience. Because our audience involves a certain level of culture, people who are interested… I’d even say more in the process than the result. That’s our real “hardcore” audience, as they say in English. The one we should maintain and increase.''
Is the problem that the audience is too small?
''Firstly, I wouldn’t say that it’s such a small audience. Secondly, what do we need: quantity or quality? Do we really need another two million people who, chewing popcorn, will stumble across a chess match, get slightly excited by watching the pieces fly around, and then forget about it completely the next day? Is that what we need? I’m not convinced.
In general it’s quite a complex question. It’s not entirely clear that chess is something which can adapt to an audience of millions or billions. I don’t think it’s like that. Chess is an intellectual activity and, like any other intellectual activity, it’s elite. Perhaps that’s not exactly the right word, but I don’t think it’ll ever fill stadiums – that’s simply unrealistic.
It’s too complex – chess has certain limitations, but also undoubted advantages. Chess is very strongly connected to culture, to possessing a certain intellect. That’s our feature, our trump card. And giving that up and exchanging it for some sort of mythical popularity among people who like, let’s say, baseball or basketball… I don’t know – I’m very sceptical about the idea that they’re all going to rush out and play chess and will be incredibly interested in it.
I don’t really agree with that whole approach. I’d choose a different niche for chess. That niche would instead be cultural. Culture, the intellect, perhaps certain computer technologies – that’s more our niche. And the niche of chess as a pure sport… If you increase the sporting element in chess I think we’ll lose a lot by that and it’s not clear what we’ll gain, because chess will never compete in terms of audiences with football, tennis and so on. That’s a fact. So I’m not convinced it’s worth trying.''
''While it’s an argument that has long been debated in the UK and US with very limited success, the question of whether or not poker can be classified as a game of skill took an unexpected turn in France this week.
There, in a court in Toulouse, it was reportedly ruled that the game featured so many elements that were dictated by a players ability level that it could not be classified as gambling and was therefore a game of skill.
While country’s government has appealed the decision, if the ruling was to be upheld it would set a new precedent for poker in France as it would mean that the game could not be taxed under the European gaming laws.
The case arose as a result of the manager of Les Coulisses and St Tropez, Jean-Piere Gleizes, being charged with organising private poker events in a public venue without the requisite license, but the court backed the defendant after hearing expert evidence.
The defendant was supported by the testimony of poker professional, national champions in chess and bridge and a mathematics professor, with the evidence proving sufficient for the French Criminal Court to rule poker was a game of skill.
However, the court did concede that the definition of poker would ultimately reside with the Supreme Court, where it is likely their decision would be overturned, so at present it does not look as though there will be any pressure to reclassify the game.''
A very fashionable Yaren Arkan playing in the Girls U13 at the Turkish Youth Championships last week. Says a lot about the success of womens chess in recent times....and about why it is easier to find sponsorship for female chess tournaments!
Spectators at the British Chess Championship that is taking place right now. Who ever said that English chess is for old folk ...may be right on!
Grab. Grab. Chomp. Chomp. Always remember to think before you move
Some tournaments are done in style! Here is part of the opening ceremony at the FIDE Women Gran Prix at Rostov-on-Don, which started yesterday. More below.
In some countries (read: a handful of countries) chess is serious business. The recent emergence of 3rd world countries as power-houses in the chess world has translated remarkably quickly into some very depressing results by mother Russia. The current female world champion is a teenager from China. The current absolute world champion is a 40-something from India. And the small country of Armenia has just won the World Team Championship, way ahead of 4th place Russia.
True, Vlad Kramnik was busy winning in Dortmund and could not participate with the national team, but would it have made much of a difference? So I suppose one should not be too surprised that GM E.Bareev has felt the pressure for change...and has resigned just days before being fired. ChessDom reported today some of the reasons and reactions to Bareev's decision.
''GM Sergei Smagin, Vice-President of the Moscow Chess Federation, said that Bareev's resignation was to be expected. He added that Bareev is responsible and serious person who understands that the fourth place in the World Championship is simply a disaster.''
Bareev to move to the US to coach in NBA? Maybe...
ChessDom continued: ''The Russian press devoted a huge attention to the "Ningbo failure". Alexander Kentler wondered why the management team has given so much time for the outside and journalistic activities on a daily basis. Namely, Bareev published a daily diary in the Sovsport, while Ilya Levitov wrote for Sport Express...
After the Championship, Sovsport interviewed Mark Glukhovsky, chief editor of the respectable "64 - Chess Review" magazine. He immediately stated that - "The main responsibility for such a bad result should be with the head coach Bareev... The team - this is not just the sum of individual ratings. There is some team chemistry: the interaction between the players, their ability to regroup at the right moment, to feel that the fellow in not doing so good, to provide comfort and encouragement. And for all this the head coach is responsible."
The former world champion Anatoly Karpov also joined the bandwagon, criticizing the performance of the Russian team, using the words - "It's a real shame!". According to ChessDom, Karpov also said that the spirit in the team must be much better and called for establishing a different, more ambitious mindset. Perhaps Karpov has someone in mind ?
How fast and loose has the CFC become in recent years since Hal Bond and Bob Gillanders have become part of the executive? While this question might be difficult to answer (and even dangerous to speculate on !) , what is known is that since both have joined the CFC executive there has been no official audit of the CFC's finances. Worse still, exactly what happened to close to $100,000 of CYCC profits has neither adequate transparency nor verifiable accountability.
The situation almost came to a head this past summer when the organizers of the CYCC refused to hand over $18,000 of profits to these individuals until they had absolute guarantees that the money would be used for specific and fully verifiable purposes.
And there is more: an open rift in the CFC executive has appeared. Mr. Baron (Toronto) wants to see in writing what happened to last year's profits! He has dared the Bob Gillanders to present a full report on the profits from the 2010 CYCC profits. (He might have to wait a very, very long time for this!)
Readers will recall several blog articles here about some $46,000 of unaccounted-for profits from the 2007 CYCC --the exact year that both Hal Bond and Bob Gillanders first became members of the CFC executive. Previous to that, Mr. Bond was involved in a scandal involving $120,000 of Trillium money that went unaccounted for within the OCA, and again Bond was involved in another scandal involving $16,000 from the 2006 CYCC that the CFC said Mr. Bond owed them and tried to not pay. In 2007, on the advice of Bob Gillander--who was CFC treasurer at the time and who has training as an accountant--the CFC ''forgave'' Mr. Bond.
Just this past week on the CFC message board, Mr. Gillander continued his obfuscation of the facts ,writing :
''The records (financial and otherwise) from that time are in very poor shape. I did invest considerable time trying to make sense of it all, and it is both frustrating and embarrassing to admit that some of it remains a mystery to me to this day. Memories are going old ...but unfortunately the accounting took a back seat. It is now 2011 and the trail grows cold. ... For my own peace of mind, I would really like to know myself exactly what happened.''
Started yesterday and continues to the 15th of August. Many of the world's currently strongest female players are taking part, including the current world champion Yifan Hou and her official challenger Humpy Koneru, as well as ex-world champions Alexandra Kosteniuk and Antoaneta Stefanova.
The opening ceremony was spectacular and counted amongst the guest the current FIDE president Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.
Even former world champion Alexandra Kosteniuk got up and danced!
RD.1 MATCH OF THE DAY
India's Koneru had just qualified to play a match for the world championship against title holder Yifan Hou sometime next year (?) and therefore there was much anticipation to see these two face-off in round one! And they did not disappoint.
POSITION AFTER 35 MOVES:
Yifan Hou (WORLD CHAMPION)
Humpy Koneru (CHALLENGER)
The game has been a tense affair with the advantage changing sides more than once. Here White is a pawn up but must be careful. Correct is 36.g3! , when Black would not have full compensation for the pawn deficit, and White would maintain winning chances.
Koneru , when she stood well, but visibly nervous
INSTEAD, probably short of time, Koneru blundered with 36.h3??, which allows Black to win by force! DO YOU SEE HOW?
The current world champion Yifan Hou did not lose her cool when under pressure
Questions and inquiries can be sent to
spraggettblog@yahoo.com;Backup site available at www.spraggettarchives.blogspot.com
But presently not open for public viewing.
''I used to think anyone doing anything weird was weird. Now I know that it is the people that call others weird that are weird.'' --Paul McCartney
