tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post2929064547514918450..comments2023-03-23T11:12:13.191-07:00Comments on US Chess League News: Week 5 Game of the WeekArun Sharmahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17502944059031864655noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-39839117414466805202009-10-08T11:59:53.112-07:002009-10-08T11:59:53.112-07:00Fine Ashton!Fine Ashton!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-49714859150345832902009-10-05T13:19:43.367-07:002009-10-05T13:19:43.367-07:00I kind of like Ilya's idea. I think it's ...I kind of like Ilya's idea. I think it's great there is so much blogging being done, but at the same time with so many different posts, it's hard to keep track of everything or have a centralized discussion anywhere.<br /><br />I know there were plans (I think after Season Two) to start a forums page on the USCL site which unfortunately never materialized. Perhaps it's something to look into for the future though...Arun Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17502944059031864655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-34687325873838212292009-10-05T11:51:36.120-07:002009-10-05T11:51:36.120-07:00I was thinking... one of the reasons for this typ...I was thinking... one of the reasons for this type of "comment "explosion on GOTW articles( besides Jeff's ranting) is the general lack of feedback possibilities to the matches themselves. Way back in 2005, Greg and Arun used to do a short recap of matches with diagrams...It was cool but it was more work for them and now that role has been passed on to the individual teams blogs. However, the problem is in the lack of "centralization" that the uscl blog provides, people are too lazy to go and make comments on every team's blog, especially on ones not related to their team. Solution-- go back to the old format where the recap of games or at least post-match results on uscl.com are subject to open league-wide discussion(comments enabled). This will quench the thirst of emotional bloggers across the league and alleviate some pressure of GOTW articles.Ilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998314504780560129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-49657793824888589592009-10-05T10:25:01.543-07:002009-10-05T10:25:01.543-07:00Specific Constructive Idea to Better The League:
...Specific Constructive Idea to Better The League:<br /> <br /> I propose that we have a blog post after each round titled "USCL Fans and players pick your GOTW!" They will be asked to leave their top 5 picks in order and why.<br /> To avoid biasing judges, Arun should make sure that the blog is moderated and not release any of the comments until after all 5 judges have made their decisions. <br />These fans that offer their 5 picks will have the most credibility when it comes to criticizing the judges. I guarantee that I will listen to these people very carefully, much more than the "OMG STUPID IDIOT JUDGE!" people.<br /> If BionicLime has the time, maybe we can see some extra whacko-meter material.<br /> I am offering a challenge that I am sure many USCL Fans will be willing to accept. <br /> Perhaps someone will do such a great job and they can replace me when Commissioner Greg comes to his senses and lets me go! <br /><br />One last thing: <br /> Herman is a very nice guy with a lot of class as I have learned recently. I never have and I never will hold any ill feelings towards him or anyone else in the league. Everyone is more than welcome to hold ill feelings towards me! <br /> I wish Mr. Herman the best of luck and I am sure he will enjoy more GOTW success.<br /> Anyone who participates in the USCL when they are not only playing their game is doing a great service for the USCL and chess in general. <br /> Even those who I consider to be impulsive, angry, irrational and at times too crude in their remarks, I'd rather have you around than apathetic fans.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032133876129602986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-1082685579014859012009-10-05T08:18:09.418-07:002009-10-05T08:18:09.418-07:00Quite honestly, I am getting tired of reading thes...Quite honestly, I am getting tired of reading these comments, thet are mostly insipid and go around in circles in terms of their argument, Ashton just sounds like a drunk rambling bum. The obvious question is why am I reading it and bothering to post. First of all I am reading this quite selectively any Ashton comment gets skipped, now I am forced to do thge same for Arun because he too is exceeding reasonable space. Ok nough venting... Here is what I propose: Since we have judges who think they are premadonas, their influences and impact on Gotw need to be lessened. I propose a hybride system, 5 judges score count as 50 % and the league general vote (all players) counts as the other 50%, in case of ties our omnipotent commishioner gets to make the tiebreaking decision. League voting is to be conducting by team managers via email and submited to Greg, if someone doesn't vote its ok, so long as majority votes.Ilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998314504780560129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-22998677810011320612009-10-05T01:59:09.794-07:002009-10-05T01:59:09.794-07:00All good responses and valid points Arun but I sti...All good responses and valid points Arun but I still think that the system could be improved a little. <br /><br />In response to my 3) idea. The half point shouldn't be enough to kick the bd4 game up over a superior game just over an equal game. This was the idea behind it, in fact it may be a better tiebreaker idea imo to just simply say a lower board wins in the case of the tie instead of a handicap. Its an idea anyways one that could be easily tested by going back through the old gotw and seeing if this ever would have impacted results.<br /><br />In the end though, I very much like the judges efforts and the framework you currently have (5 judges, pick 5). I feel that this removes some of the subjectivety just by sheer numbers. The aesthetics of an individual judge should never be discouraged (ie a particular attraction to one game). Something I think several complainers have been overly harsh about.<br /><br /><br />Anyways, I was just trying to be constructive. I don't appreciate all the negativity unless it is accompanied by suggestions. I really would just like to continue to applaud the effort. I enjoy the GOTW. It should not be hard to tone down some of the inflammatory rhetoric though.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-23511896065294773842009-10-04T23:01:52.791-07:002009-10-04T23:01:52.791-07:00Also, let us not forget that neither crosswords no...Also, let us not forget that neither crosswords nor sudoku are the <i>ne plus ultra</i> of highbrow newspaper puzzles.Ron Younghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01627958054359995949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-76700153219004864262009-10-04T21:32:21.454-07:002009-10-04T21:32:21.454-07:00Daniel:
Thanks. It's not often we have a pos...Daniel:<br /><br />Thanks. It's not often we have a post on here which tries to be constructive rather than just complaining or insulting one of the parties involved, but it's still nice to occasionally get them!<br /><br />In regards to your suggestions, here's what I think.<br /><br /><br />1) establishing some base line requirements for it to be gotw such as pretty good resistance from the losing participant.<br /><br /><br />This has been suggested many times, and I have a hard time believing it would improve matters. For one, obviously everyone would have their own opinion about what the "base line requirements" should be so establishing a good set of such guidelines, which would cover all possible games appropriately doesn't really seem possible. Not to mention that the requirements themselves might be very subjective themselves. After all, in your suggestion, what constitutes "pretty good resistance"? That in itself is very subjective. Probably nearly any such guideline would have a similar subjectivity to it.<br /><br />In short, I just don't see something of this nature making the process any less subjective than it already is.<br /><br /><br />2) Remove all commentary towards the players themselves in the judging and leave it restricted jsut to the game to avoid all these negative insults that people like Ashton seem to love.<br /><br /><br />Just as we have multiple judges to get several viewpoints from people who don't look at things the same way, I've always been in favor of the same being true for our comments. As you might have noticed, I tend to just focus on my reasons why I liked a particular game, or whether I wasn't too inspired by it, fairly straightforward approach. The other judges, in particular Jeff and Michael, do it somewhat differently, and personally if I was a reader, I would find it much more entertaining to read five different styles of comments rather than all of them of a similar nature (this is in fact the reason that back in Season Two that Greg decided to have me and Ron Young both do predictions as our styles are completely contrasting).<br /><br />I do agree though that this week's comments went a bit too far, and I intend to make sure that that does not happen again, but I can't really agree with removing all comments of that style.<br /><br />3) Quit being so harsh on the bd4 guys, they can play nicely too. In fact it might be fair to maybe award a half point to any bd4 game that is being considered? It might make up for their lack of "name recognition" and in the event of a draw would supplant it over the drawing game but without adding too many points to rival superior games.<br /><br /><br />It is unfortunate that the lowest board tends to get so little love in this area, as I don't think a Board Four game has won GOTW since Season Two. In my opinion, a game's sheer quality ought to be the most important factor when evaluating it for this contest which naturally tends to put the lowest boards at a severe disadvantage, as typically the other potentially outstanding factors do not allow them to overcome. While it's unfortunate, I can't really disagree with that end result either as trying to require a "GOTW" to be a well played game doesn't seem unreasonable, and I would not agree with handicapping Board Four Games so that people might end up winning GOTW prizes with less deserving games simply because they happen to have lower ratings.Arun Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17502944059031864655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-63128690365593667792009-10-04T21:05:01.491-07:002009-10-04T21:05:01.491-07:00Jeff, by "personal", I was referring to ...Jeff, by "personal", I was referring to your comments that "Herman should be fined $50" -- i.e. things that referred to the player not the game, not that you impugned my character. I stand by my comments that refer purely to the moves on the board and analysis of them, but my sense of humor deserted me and I overreacted in this thread and wherever I insulted you, that was not intended. I am a big fan of the League, and appreciate everyone who volunteers their time to make it happen, including you, from Greg on down.Matthew Hermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-56531992535041820302009-10-04T20:23:09.801-07:002009-10-04T20:23:09.801-07:00I really do have to say that while I applaud the j...I really do have to say that while I applaud the judges for their good work...<br /><br />I would add there is no reason for Ashton inflammatory and insulting rhetoric. The judges should be kind to players regardless if they have preferred favorite games over the one in question. There is no reason to even in jest saying insulting words.<br /><br />Also, Joel Benjamin himself spoke to the poor quality of his most recent game so I don't even know why that was ever considered GOTW material by anyone.<br /><br />Anyways, to answer Arun's question,<br /><br />I would change the system by 1) establishing some base line requirements for it to be gotw such as pretty good resistance from the losing participant.<br />2) Remove all commentary towards the players themselves in the judging and leave it restricted jsut to the game to avoid all these negative insults that people like Ashton seem to love.<br />3) Quit being so harsh on the bd4 guys, they can play nicely too. In fact it might be fair to maybe award a half point to any bd4 game that is being considered? It might make up for their lack of "name recognition" and in the event of a draw would supplant it over the drawing game but without adding too many points to rival superior games.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-66918521763085642592009-10-04T18:09:09.011-07:002009-10-04T18:09:09.011-07:00LOL, wow.
Well, based on that quad-post outburs...LOL, wow. <br /><br />Well, based on that quad-post outburst I think it's safe to say Jeff Ashton won't be voting for any Matthew Herman games in future GOTW's.<br /><br />Motion to dismiss a compromised judge?<br /><br />p.s. Nothing personal Jeff...it's just hard to believe you will judge Matt's games completely impartially from here on out...John Bartholomewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08255759686281475732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-87968265785461544642009-10-04T17:16:32.650-07:002009-10-04T17:16:32.650-07:00Either it's good that I use computer analysis...Either it's good that I use computer analysis, bad that I use it, inconsistent because I use multiple streams of analysis, or you could call it a thorough hybrid method. You could argue that the "Prius" is an inconsistent car perhaps. There are countless ways to spin things to benefit you. <br /><br />I don't know what your goal is at the moment: Are you just looking for some extra high fives in addition to your 3rd place victory?<br /><br /> You can spin things by highlighting certain parts of my paragraphs that you find to weaken my arguments. You can call me a "provocateur" by pointing out some Sudoku comment that I made and act like you are insulted. Clever because at the same time you can make someone appear to be somewhat of a snob. Honing in on the "$50 fine" comment could also be a nice tactic, but way too obvious.<br /><br /> Obviously your strategy is to discredit those you disagree with or those you feel might hurt your image. <br /><br />I really have to ask: Are you personally offended? <br /><br />Are you really upset? Do you feel there is injustice? Would you be a happier person if the whole world said your game is brilliant and you are the next Bobby Fischer? Are you on a mission to banish judges who you disagree with? Are you on a crusade to make the chess world more PC? Are you just a fan of logic that everything must make perfect sense in the way you see it? My goal is to promote the USCL. What's yours? Looking to strike a deal with Nike perhaps? Someone earlier suggested that my criticism could effect sponsorship money. Maybe you could sue me for libel. <br /><br />I really find it hard to believe that a rational human being of your intellect can be too upset by this, but maybe it's selfish of me to assume this. <br /><br />I do respect those who irrationally defend injustices to their peers and teammates, i.e. "my buddy should have won GOTW ARGH!" I think it is noble even when they are completely wrong but they are looking out. That's part of "the code". <br /><br />This, is just silly.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032133876129602986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-16170560901589454102009-10-04T17:16:09.352-07:002009-10-04T17:16:09.352-07:00Ok, I didn't read Herman's recent comment ...Ok, I didn't read Herman's recent comment carefully enough the first time, as I missed some parts of it. <br /><br /> I don't know how you define "personal insult" but I criticized your game and GOTW judgment in a way that you disagree with. I used the logic "This game should not win GOTW because of your game not being better than others, and some reasons why your game is not better than others is.." <br /><br />You seem pretty upset for someone who won 3rd place over many other great games played by other great players such as yourself.<br /><br />There was no "personal insult" by me. I would have no idea how to personally insult you. I know you like to quote dictionaries so maybe you can come up with something on this one in regards to the definition of personal insult. We could change this into an argument over semantics perhaps. <br /><br />You claiming that I am personally insulting you is personally insulting to me! I'm kidding about this.<br /><br />I do not know, nor have I ever heard of you until a month ago. Maybe I met you or even played you and it slipped from my memory. My apologies. Again, I said things that you did not like to hear about your play and the GOTW result. Sorry if this hurts your feelings.<br /><br />First time I saw your name was when you were criticizing my Esserman vote. That was noble of you. You did not seem to like the fact that I said nice things about his play, maybe too nice, then gave it the no-vote. Maybe that was inconsistent of me? At least you were classy in your comments, and your questions were reasonable and objective.<br /> <br />It's kind of ironic how this time I gave you the no-vote and I say things that are very congruent to my vote. Also you actually won a prize by the way. It's not like you "bubbled" and got 4th place. <br />This week I'm not being inconsistent, I'm just "mean and wrong". Can you at least find a consistent way to personally insult me?<br /> <br />Again, it was selfless of you to defend Esserman in a way that you felt was right. This? <br /><br />You might be offended by my "I never heard of you" and attempt to spin it in a way that makes me look "personally insulting". Fact is, I was asked to judge because for me, nothing is personal! I've been "out of the loop" and I live in a very large city that has no chess team. I guess you can spin that in various ways too! <br /><br /> When properly motivated you can spin any comments that you disagree with. You can also use statistics to lie about things as well! Perhaps you are a fan of "Fox News". Sorry, that is getting close to a personal insult. You can highlight certain areas and ignore others. I know this, and I don't defend against these attacks very well as I write very long posts. As a matter of fact, I encourage them!<br /><br />I find the spinsters and comment analysis to be entertaining for myself and the USCL fans. Otherwise I would use a "both teams played hard" approach to commentating.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032133876129602986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-28731029400899636522009-10-04T16:06:58.363-07:002009-10-04T16:06:58.363-07:00For judging ideas: I think the best way to silence...For judging ideas: I think the best way to silence the GOTW fans is to just eliminate judge comments!Or eliminate mine at least. Occasionally I feel that the fans are often looking desperately, and dissecting every piece of information out there so they can act like degenerates!<br /><br />Also here is another suggestion: Stop wasting your time looking at what judges did NOT vote for, but look at what they DID vote for<br /><br />I think there many "Prima donnas" in the chess world and that's fine with me. It makes it fun and funny. I wish sometimes they wouldn't take themselves so seriously though. It's just kind of saddening to watch them stress out so much.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032133876129602986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-50327287107009096672009-10-04T16:05:35.055-07:002009-10-04T16:05:35.055-07:00I'll respond to Mr. Herman since it's only...I'll respond to Mr. Herman since it's only fair. This is also a general response to some others:<br /><br />I think your game should not have won GOTW because there are other games that are vastly superior to yours. Nothing personal. After looking at other comments and yours, I'm not as outraged that you won.<br /><br />You have a right to feel annoyed, but cheer up. You won 3rd place! <br /><br />Everyone: I do not intend on taking any "sensitivity" classes in the near future so I will MOST LIKELY continue to write comments like I have. That's what I do and that's what I will continue to do. I like to keep the comments clean, and keep it simple. I will try my best not to traumatize anyone. <br />These comments from some of the USCL fans are amusing. Please share some more. If you don't like my comments, Blame Commissioner Greg. He is a loose cannon!<br /><br />I did rank Brian Smith's win and Michael Klein's win above Herman's. For some of the fans, take a look at the games, look at my rankings, and think about your Rybka comments again. Rybka says Brian Smith is a blunder-machine but I don't care! Rybka says something stupid about how Klein is losing on move 6 after some stupid Qb3 c5 trick. Also good news, to make everyone happy I will no longer be using Rybka. <br /><br />Rybka is stupid at times, I know this. That is why I plan on switching to Crafty V.20 this week.<br /><br />I think it would have been fair if Brian Smith got 1st place and Klein got a top place. <br /><br />Stop picking and choosing "weak points" in my comments, and read the part that says I like looking at the games without a computer at all first.I like to use Rybka to check my analysis. This is "old school" to some. I'm all for Hybrid game analysis! <br /><br />I thought Smith's and Klein's were much better games and they are similar to Herman's in the respect that they have attacks. Those games are superior to Herman's game in my opinion. <br /><br />Rybka says Brian Smith is losing after b4 (although I am now aware that it has been played several times before). I am familiar with "Horizon Effect" and the computer's inability to understand some sacrifices. <br /><br />You can say it's inconsistent of me to like Brian Smith's game and not Herman's, and you can say that I am overusing Rybka. You do have to pick one though... it can't really be both.<br /><br />This whole inconsistency theory is completely stupid by the way. Does it have to be inconsistent if I don't care for Tal's play but like Morphy's? Just because they are both considered attacking players, there are a lot of other differences and subtle factors.<br /><br />If every strong player in the world wrote a "My 10 favorite games book" they would look entirely different. If every attacking player wrote a book like that, they would look very different as well. <br /><br />As I said before, there were much better games than that one. Don't over-think it. It is still slightly sickening to see how it got ranked over other games. I think Shmelov-Erenburg is a lot better than Herman's game also by the way. <br /><br />If you look closely at the judgments, and not my comments, you will see that Rybka would hate my GOTW judging methods. <br /><br />In response to the nasty thing said to another judge: It would have been completely logical if the GOTW winner didn't even make the top 5 list. There were too many good games this week so a lot of interesting things can happen. Arguably, it's just as ridiculous that Joel Benjamin wasn't in some people's top 5.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01032133876129602986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-20437897695159104882009-10-04T14:36:26.421-07:002009-10-04T14:36:26.421-07:00Well, I suppose that's something that we'l...Well, I suppose that's something that we'll just have to agree to disagree on. The problem seems to me more to be the fact that you have taken the viewpoint that both Giorgi's game and your own game were both very good (not an unreasonable view at all, but nevertheless a subjective one), and since fluffy's rude comment was in favor of that viewpoint, you somehow consider them "not personal and not unreasonable". Yet when Jeff Ashton's view that your game was not good is contrary to your opinion, his comments thereby become "personal classless insults". <br /><br />What I really found most amusing about fluffy's comment (prepare for a bit of nostalgia!) is this thread from the end of the 2007 Season: <br /><br />http://usclnews.blogspot.com/2008/01/blogger-of-year-award.html<br /><br /><br />where there was vigorous complaining about who won the "Blogger of the Year Award", and fluffy himself (Vigorito) was blasting anyone who questioned the end decision with "Hey, it's subjective, you're being ridiculous if you complain about it", yet when someone else makes a decision he doesn't like on something which is just as subjective, he thinks it's appropriate to make a comment like that.<br /><br />Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?Arun Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17502944059031864655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-5050293268104621782009-10-04T14:12:47.739-07:002009-10-04T14:12:47.739-07:00Anonymous: Why would I trash Giorgi's game? ...Anonymous: Why would I trash Giorgi's game? It was a historically significant masterpiece.<br /><br />The whole point is that it is not about the "who", but the "what" on the board. The Adelberg game was nice, but it was basically a carbon copy of Movsesian-Kasparov. That's not an insult to Jim Dean, the talented Mr. Adelberg or anyone else -- it's a fact.<br /><br />And Arun, my point was not to defend fluffy but that there's nothing inherently wrong (i.e. in general) with the construct he used as long as it's backed by solid, relevant evidence. To wit, if a game is a significant novelty refuting a historically important opening played by some of the greatest players of all-time, it's not unreasonable to conclude that anyone who thinks that game doesn't belong in the top 5 of a game of the week contest seems to lack proper chess judgment.<br /><br />Let's focus on substance.<br /><br />I cannot speak for the other posters, but this isn't about people being idiots, it's about their stated guidelines being absolutely trampled on, followed with classless personal insults.Matthew Hermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-23332431585701668852009-10-04T13:32:19.963-07:002009-10-04T13:32:19.963-07:00Matt:
Arun, it's not personal nor inappropria...Matt:<br /><br />Arun, it's not personal nor inappropriate for someone to express an opinion with the construct of, "XYZ has no business being ABC because of GHI"<br /><br /><br /><br />Well you might think so, but I personally do not agree at all. After all, there seem to be many posters who seem to be mostly amused by Ashton's comments while you speak of a lack of class and the like, and I personally find the comment made by fluffy to be just as classless as you probably find anything that was said by Jeff. For instance, both you and Jfernandez have basically implied that the Adelberg game was not especially deserving, and I'm sure if Jim Dean (who ranked it first) or someone who agrees him came on here and said that the two of you are stupid for not considering that a great game, that you would appreciate that just as much as I appreciated fluffy's comment.<br /><br />But once again that's really not the main issue here, the inherent problem lies more in what Michael basically said, that when every poster assumes they they are a genius and that anyone who doesn't share their opinions is an idiot, it obviously leads nowhere. <br /><br />To a point this doesn't surprise me, I've been dealing with nonsense of this nature ever since GOTW started involving $ prizes at the beginning of the 2007 Season, and I guess it was naive of me to think that people would eventually come to accept that those who hold different viewpoints then them are not necessarily idiots. <br /><br />I mean we've had three 2600+ GMs as judges for the last three Game of the Year Contests and similar complaints were levied about them - it really just amazes me how every poster can assume that in something so subjective that they are always the correct one, no matter if they are dealing with players who are leaps and bounds better than they are.Arun Sharmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17502944059031864655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-62337924441725714102009-10-04T12:50:27.917-07:002009-10-04T12:50:27.917-07:00In regards to the previous post: the situation is ...In regards to the previous post: the situation is tricky because both games involve NY pllayers winning and hence Herman can't state outright that those who picked Giorgi's game are fools. Therefore much more kogical to attack game which got 2nd place, especially since it was played by a bunch of " nobodies."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-65848217455785113732009-10-04T10:41:48.671-07:002009-10-04T10:41:48.671-07:00I love how many posters harp on a single game, imp...I love how many posters harp on a single game, implying that anyone who failed to pick that game as #1 is an idiot. Has anyone actually proven Herman's sacrifices to be *sound*, or have we merely concluded that the attack is playable at the faster time control? My point is that this game was exciting and creative, but lacked the clarity that Kacheishvili demonstrated in refuting a line played by Smyslov, Korchnoi and others. In fact, even Herman made that point.<br /><br />Now will all of you who think you are geniuses and can't consider other viewpoints please let the judges do their job? Thank you!Michael Aignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16166841797285152190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-82162134158859071342009-10-04T08:28:19.688-07:002009-10-04T08:28:19.688-07:00Just admit it - the cleanest simplest games are ea...Just admit it - the cleanest simplest games are easier to judge. Zorgit's loss was clean - you knew the youngster didn't make a mistake, so you voted high for it.<br /><br />Those that didn't look closely at the Herman game underestimated it, simply figuring that something had to be unsound there. You actually have to spend quite a bit of time to realize that it isn't unsound at all, which admittedly is way too much to ask. <br /><br />Now that everyone who dismissed it is taking a second look, you're realizing it probably isn't the bad game y'all thought it was.<br /><br />Matt, the lesson for you is simple: play simpler chess, that way the judges won't keep overlooking you. Copy some Kasparov game move for move and you'll get 2nd place next time. Serves you right for doing original work and asking too much of the horribly overburdened judges.John C. Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659454235182687916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-86431243667230816012009-10-04T07:14:21.315-07:002009-10-04T07:14:21.315-07:00Jeff's personal comments lacked class and his ...Jeff's personal comments lacked class and his analysis, clarity. The objection is not to his aesthetic preferences, which everyone has and a diverse range of which is good, but to the utter lack of consistency, temperament and intellectual honesty in his judging.<br /><br />It does the league and Jeff no favors when other comments here attempt to obscure that very clear fact with "let's all get along" material.<br /><br />He made a bold claim that my game was unsound (later upgraded to "shaky and unclear", when in fact Chess has only three results, the above which is not one of them) and an insult to his sensibilities. He has waffled between "I do my own analysis" and "my criteria is an interesting rybka luck-o-meter", while acknowledging that he is using an old computer that in the time frame available to the judges for analysing this game, could not possibly have reached sufficient depth to make a conclusive negative judgment. Michael's comments are demonstrative on that point.<br /><br />There are more effective ways to be a provocateur than the old saw of "you play checkers, I play chess" (alluded to by his perception of his critics' book preferences).<br /><br />Arun, it's not personal nor inappropriate for someone to express an opinion with the construct of, "XYZ has no business being ABC because of GHI". It's a phrase that's seen in many contexts and, in this case, expresses the utter shock that a game that effectively refutes a variation played on multiple occasions by Smyslov, Keres and Kortchnoi is somehow not one of the 5 best games of the week, while a game that basically copies Movsesian-Kasparov is lauded.<br /><br />Alex, with all due respect, this is not about the preference between a devastating attack and a sparkling positional masterpiece. If Ashton chose to vote for 5 instructive rook endgames, that would be consistent. What is inconsistent is not voting for a game because he didn't understand it, when it clearly satisfied his "entertaining attack or creative play" criterion.Matthew Hermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-24571174536453026012009-10-03T17:46:08.324-07:002009-10-03T17:46:08.324-07:00Bad idea. GOTW should not be a popularity contest...Bad idea. GOTW should not be a popularity contest. We already have seen allegations of judges picking based on personal biases, something that will only increase with a non-scientific poll.Michael Aignerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16166841797285152190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-25224272079883693232009-10-03T16:59:18.695-07:002009-10-03T16:59:18.695-07:00I have a radical idea, lets get rid of all the jud...I have a radical idea, lets get rid of all the judges and just have the league vote on GOTW, its like having a poll on the side of this page, except this time it will actually count.Ilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05998314504780560129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2681850489432318981.post-48205561742835048302009-10-03T16:38:39.175-07:002009-10-03T16:38:39.175-07:00It’s remarkable how many of the most interesting c...It’s remarkable how many of the most interesting comment threads on chess websites take the basic form “Is Person(s) X insane/evil/totally retarded?”Elizabeth Vicaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880561980096775673noreply@blogger.com