How not to play the Benko Gambit as White and....
John J.
Championship.
Event "United States Championship 2006"]
[Site "San Diego USA"]
[Date "2006.03.02"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Cottrell, K"]
[Black "Schneider, D"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1663"]
[BlackElo "2525"]
[EventDate "2006.??.??"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[WhiteTeam "United States"]
[BlackTeam "United States"]
[WhiteTeamCountry "USA"]
[BlackTeamCountry "USA"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nd2 Qa5 5.Qb3 bxc4 6.Qxc4 Ba6 7.Qb3 c4 8.
Qf3 Nxd5 9.e4 Nb4 10.Qd1 N8c6 11.Ngf3 Rb8 12.a3 c3 13.Nb3 cxb2 14.
Nxa5 bxa1=Q 15.Nb3 Qc3+ 16.Qd2 Nc2+ 17.Kd1 Qxb3 18.Qxc2 Qxc2+ 19.Kxc2
Bxf1 20.Rxf1 e5 21.Bb2 f6 22.Nd2 Bc5 23.f4 exf4 24.Rxf4 Be3 25.Rg4
Bxd2 26.Rxg7 Be3 27.Bxf6 Bd4 28.Bxd4 Nxd4+ 29.Kd3 Ne6 30.Rg4 Ke7 31.
Kc4 Rhc8+ 32.Kd3 Rb3+ 33.Kd2 Rf8 34.Kc2 Nd4+ 35.Kd2 Rf2+ 36.Ke1 Re2+
37.Kd1 Rb1# 0-1
David Richerby
> how to look real stupid by playing with a rook down against a GM in
> the US Championship.
At least IM Schneider (not actually a GM yet, even given the 2500+
rating) probably didn't have to think too hard about the rest of the
game. The real problem here is that, in the event of a tie-break,
Schneider will be severely penalized for having played a low-rated
player who isn't going to win any games.
But don't be too hard on Cottrell -- I'd be nervous as hell if I were
a 1700 playing in a national championship, probably playing an IM for
the first time in a serious game.
> [WhiteTeam "United States"]
> [BlackTeam "United States"]
> [WhiteTeamCountry "USA"]
> [BlackTeamCountry "USA"]
(BTW, Those headers shouldn't be there as the US Championship isn't a
team competition.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Indelible Atlas (TM): it's like a map
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the world but it can't be erased!
John J.
She had a lost game by the 8th move. A rook down by the 18th.
In my very first game of my very first tournament I played an I.M.(the World
Junior Champion, no less) and, if I remember correctly, I lost a piece on
move 20 and immediately resigned. That was back in 1967. I was nervous. :)
"David Richerby" <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:qeC*nz...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
Taylor Kingston
John J. wrote:
> how to look real stupid by playing with a rook down against a GM in the US
> Championship.
Quit picking on the girl.
John J.
It's just a rediculous situation made worse by this player's behavior and
the stupid selection process.
I bet there is more to this than meets the eye. She qualified through the
National Open where it seemed that no other female bothered to register for
the US Champ.
It stinks.
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141392613....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Taylor Kingston
John J. wrote:
> Poor little girl.
>
> It's just a rediculous situation made worse by this player's behavior and
> the stupid selection process.
>
> I bet there is more to this than meets the eye. She qualified through the
> National Open where it seemed that no other female bothered to register for
> the US Champ.
>
> It stinks.
I would agree there seems to be a flaw in the selection process for
the US Ch, and we may question the lady's wisdom in entering the
tournament (though not her courage). But I think it's in poor taste to
ridicule her play here publicly. Most of us would look just as bad in
that situation.
John J.
piece. You know as well as I do that to do so is embarassing. I would say
the same things if it were a man.
"Taylor Kingston" <tkin...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141393812.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Harold Buck
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> how to look real stupid by playing with a rook down against a GM in the US
> Championship.
>
How about "Gee, there's a problem with the selection process for the US
Championship" instead of calling someone stupid in a public forum?
Considering who you're calling stupid and how you call hear a "poor
little girl" later, it makes you look like a misogynist. And a jerk.
--Harold Buck
"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."
-Homer J. Simpson
David Richerby
> I certainly wouldn't continue to play a game against a GM after I
> lost a piece. You know as well as I do that to do so is embarassing.
We already know that. Stating it repeatedly doesn't help to make the
world a better place. Just drop it already.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hungry Game (TM): it's like a family
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ board game but it'll eat you!
John J.
I never called her stupid.
The problem is not only with the selection process, it's with the player.
"Harold Buck" <no_one...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-AC6A...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Harold Buck
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> How about learning to read Harold.
>
> I never called her stupid.
>
I know that. But telling someone they look stupid is just a roundabout
way of calling them stupid.
> The problem is not only with the selection process, it's with the player.
And with the misogynist who makes a big deal out of it.
Harold Buck
David Richerby <dav...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> John J. <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I certainly wouldn't continue to play a game against a GM after I
> > lost a piece. You know as well as I do that to do so is embarassing.
>
> We already know that. Stating it repeatedly doesn't help to make the
> world a better place. Just drop it already.
>
And although it's considered to be impolite to play on in a lost
position, a player has the right to do so, and I think it's ridiculous
when people get all huffy and insulted when it happens. It's pretty
funny when they get so huffy and upset at the insult of being forced to
play out a won position that they get swindled. Not that that's likely
to happen with a GM vs. a 1700 player, but the best thing the GM can do
in that situation is to just play and put the game away.
Of course, no one is going to fault the GM if he doesn't want to chat
nicely about the game afterward.
John J.
but it's very rude to continue playing with absolutely no chance of a draw
or a win.
This is the US Championship. I expect better, even from a B player. I guess
some on here would rather patronize the player.
"Harold Buck" <no_one...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:no_one_knows-545B...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Ron
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't continue to play a game against a GM after I lost a
> piece. You know as well as I do that to do so is embarassing. I would say
> the same things if it were a man.
And yet, plenty of players of international strength have done so.
With minimal research, I could find a dozen examples of world-class
players playing on down large amounts of material or forcing their
opponent to mate them.
If Ms. Cottrell plays like this normally, then she should be censured.
On the other hand, given that the only information we have is the game
score, we have no way of really judging. Maybe Mr. Schneider was
obnoxious to his opponent before the game was decided, or maybe he
encouraged her to play it out because it took almost no effort from him
and he thought she would learn from it.
We really don't know, so we should refrain from judgement.
As for whether or not she should have accepted the invitation to play in
the tournament, let's be serious: how many people here would refuse the
opportunity to get in several games against players on international
strength?
-Ron
John J.
keep playing a losing position is time trouble? Just speculation.
I had the opportunity to watch an entire strong international tournament
long time ago and I even prepared the bullitins and not once did I see a
player keep on playing in a lost position unless there was time trouble.
Maybe times have changed....
"Ron" <ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-9CFC...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Ron
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I had the opportunity to watch an entire strong international tournament
> long time ago and I even prepared the bullitins and not once did I see a
> player keep on playing in a lost position unless there was time trouble.
> Maybe times have changed....
I don't think it's common - but one of my chess books (I can't remember
which one at the moment, and don't have time to search) has a whole
series of examples of masters playing on beyond all reason.
I agree that the game under discussion is an extreme example, but I
think we should withhold judgement given what we don't know about the
circumstances.
The primary fault here is with the rules which put a B-player in the
championships.
-Ron
John J.
rook and a piece until she was checkmated.
Heck, I would have called it a day much sooner and hit the local pub. :)
"Ron" <ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ronaldinho_m-BE30...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Harold Buck
"John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I agree. Just for the record that same player played on today also down a
> rook and a piece until she was checkmated.
>
Maybe it cost her a bundle to get there and she's trying to bring down
the total cost per move played? :-)
Nick
> John J. <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > how to look real stupid by playing with a rook down
> > against a GM in the US Championship.
Would John J. recall every game in the
1951 Botvinnik-Bronstein match? :-)
> At least IM Schneider
Two players, IM Dmitry and FM Igor, named 'Schneider'
are playing in the 2006 US Championship.
> (not actually a GM yet, even given the 2500+ rating)
That must be his USCF rating.
IM Dmitry Schneider is rated 2486 FIDE.
> probably didn't have to think too hard about the rest of the game.
> The real problem here is that, in the event of a tie-break,
> Schneider will be severely penalized for having played a
> low-rated player who isn't going to win any games.
>
> But don't be too hard on Cottrell -- I'd be nervous as hell
> if I were a 1700 playing in a national championship,
That's not the proper way to approach it.
In order to become a strong chess player, one usually needs
to develop enough psychological 'toughness' in competition.
I can think of some players who play very confidently and well
against much weaker opponents, when everything seems to
be going well for them, yet who tend to become upset when
their opponents put up unexpectedly tenacious resistance.
I have heard both some men and women players claim
that it's usually harder for women than men to develop
such pyschological 'toughness' when playing against men.
It's too early, of course, to draw any conclusion about
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold's psychlogical 'toughness'.
I have no doubt that there's some sexism in chess and that,
in most societies, women tend to receive less encouragement
and fewer opportunities than men to develop their chess potential.
But it's wrong to presume, as some women seem to do, that
all men must have been blessed with nothing but encouragement
and opportunities to develop their chess potential.
As a young player, I had no money to spend on chess.
I had no chess books, chess magazines, or chess software.
After I had learned how to play, years passed before I ever
saw a chess clock, except in a photo. I never have had
any formal chess instruction. My family regarded chess
as a complete waste of my time and a harmful distraction
from my education, so I was strongly discouraged and
eventually forbidden from playing chess.
I did not, however, feel too sorry for myself on account of it.
In my parents' generation, many children had died of starvation
and other children suffered even worse fates. I was told, when
I was about 12 years old, that I should consider myself fortunate
still to attend school rather than, say, being conscripted into
the army (which has used boys of age 12 as 'cannon fodder').
In my view, most, though not all, people in affluent Western
societies have become so accustomed to their privileges
that they find the common hardships and sufferings of many
non-Westerners to be far beyond their comprehension.
I disapprove of John J's put-downs of Kelly Cottrell-Finegold.
But let's not exaggerate the 'burden' of pressures on her.
Even in US sporting terms, she's far from being Jackie
Robinson 'breaking the color bar' in major league baseball.
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold playing in the 2006 US Championship
is not a major story, in my view, though John J. may disagree.
> probably playing an IM for the first time in a serious game.
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold is married to IM Ben Finegold.
I suspect that she's played many games with an IM,
though I cannot say how 'serious' they were to him.
In any case, she certainly should not be unfamiliar
with how well an IM can play chess.
--Nick
David Ames
Harold Buck wrote:
> In article <bvUNf.52961$Fw6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "John J." <detec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > how to look real stupid by playing with a rook down against a GM in the US
> > Championship.
> >
>
> How about "Gee, there's a problem with the selection process for the US
> Championship" instead of calling someone stupid in a public forum?
> Considering who you're calling stupid and how you call hear a "poor
> little girl" later, it makes you look like a misogynist. And a jerk.
>
> --Harold Buck
>
>
>
As a matter of fact, the other day in the corridor at work, I heard one
of our people say to a visitor that some other person was stupid. I
told my boss I thought this was something that should be mentioned to
the front office. Such things should not happen.
David Ames
David Richerby
> David Richerby wrote:
>> At least IM Schneider (not actually a GM yet, even given the 2500+
>> rating)
>
> That must be his USCF rating. IM Dmitry Schneider is rated 2486
> FIDE.
Good point -- the rating I quoted was from the US Championship webpage
so, of course, the rating is USCF, not FIDE.
>> probably playing an IM for the first time in a serious game.
>
> Kelly Cottrell-Finegold is married to IM Ben Finegold.
That I did not know.
> I suspect that she's played many games with an IM, though I cannot
> say how 'serious' they were to him.
By `serious', I meant `under tournament conditions' as I'm sure you
are aware. You sound like you're trying to cast some sort of
aspersion, though I've no idea what.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Adult Cheese (TM): it's like a brick
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cheese that you won't want the
children to see!
David Richerby
> Maybe it cost her a bundle to get there and she's trying to bring down
> the total cost per move played? :-)
Hehe. I had an awful tournament for that, last year. Lost in
seventeen moves in the first round (with the white pieces; ouch), won
in twenty-five in the third (my opponent graciously resigned, down a
piece for a pawn), drew in about the same number of moves in the
fifth. Thankfully, the other two games lasted about forty-five moves
each and I was sleeping on a friend's floor, which must've saved me at
least 50p per move played. :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Strange Widget (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ thingy but it's totally weird!
Nick
> Nick <nickbo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> > > probably playing an IM for the first time in a serious game.
> >
> > Kelly Cottrell-Finegold is married to IM Ben Finegold.
>
> That I did not know.
>
> > I suspect that she's played many games with an IM,
> > though I cannot say how 'serious' they were to him.
>
> By `serious', I meant `under tournament conditions'
> as I'm sure you are aware.
Botvinnik played many 'serious' training games with strong
players under the equivalent of tournament or match conditions,
even those games were not officially rated.
I regard those games, though not officially rated, as 'serious'.
I don't know whether David Richerby would agree or not.
Would the official rating procedure be *all* that separates
a 'serious' game from a 'non-serious' game?
Kelly Cottrell-Finegold may have played some 'serious'
training games with her husband, IM Ben Finegold.
> You sound like you're trying to cast some sort
> of aspersion, though I've no idea what.
I was *not* 'trying to cast some sort of aspersion' against
David Richerby, Kelly Cottrell-Finegold, or Ben Finegold.
But I have heard some male players make some comments,
of which I disapprove, about women who are married to men
who are much stronger players. Those comments sound
like: "He may spend much time teaching her chess by
playing games with her, but he does not have to take
those games too seriously because she's much weaker.
And if he keeps crushing her at chess, then she could
become upset and become less cooperative in bed."
If I had intended 'to cast some sort of aspersion', then
it would be *only* against such sexist comments.
--Nick