Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Kamsky is 2010 US Champion!

  • SonofPearl
  • on 25-05-10 13:16.

Gata_Kamsky2.jpgBy FM Mike Klein 

With only seconds remaining on his clock, GM Gata Kamsky simplified the endgame against GM Yury Shulman to clinch a draw and with it the title of 2010 U.S. Champion. He last won the title in his teenage years in 1991. 

Kamsky won with a draw because of the unique tiebreak format, which saw the players bid on a starting time for today’s rapid game. His secret bid of 25 minutes was lower than Shulman’s bid, so Kamsky got 25 minutes to his opponent’s 60, but with Black and draw odds. 

I wanted Black because I’m more solid with Black, Kamsky explained. 

After the game, Kamsky said he thought his bid was too low. He said if he had it to do over again, he would bid something around 30 minutes. Shulman built up a promising position and was better for most of the game according to Kamsky.

Referring to Shulman’s excellent shot 34. Rc5, Kamky said,  I completely blundered on c5 but I already didn’t like my position. He said he also missed Shulman’s 23. f3, instead preferring to push his pawn to b5 before playing Ne4.

Shulman critiqued several moves, including 53. Be8, which doesn’t actually do anything since after 53.Kxg5 the pawn on f7 is immune. Instead, continuing his king’s advance would have at least kept up the pressure. By this point, both players were down to just seconds and playing on increment.

Gata had nine lives in this game, Shulman said.

After the game, the two came down to the commentary room. A relieved Kamsky approached the stage and let out a cheer. Normally reserved,  he raised his arms in a V for victory.

 

8594 x gelezen 71 commentaren
3 stemmen

Reacties


  • 4 jaar geleden

    Kasabiian

    fischer was born in us .. so wat? just bcoz youre born in a barn doesnt make u a donkey look at his family hes about as american as putin

  • 4 jaar geleden

    SonofPearl

    @ Natalia - I've been feeling a little under the weather, but I'm better now! Smile

    I've just had a tooth out - ouch! Still a bit sore...

  • 4 jaar geleden

    kevingong

    @ Hermitage171  I understood your suggestion.  I just didn't agree with it completely.  i.e., I'd rather that the tie-break be decided by a 60-minute draw-odds armageddon game than a 5-minute blitz game.  I can definitely see your argument, I just think it's a matter of opinion and we'll just agree to disagree here.  I do agree with you that they should have tried something else (such as a couple rapid games) before going straight to the draw-odds game (or blitz games).

  • 4 jaar geleden

    WGM Natalia_Pogonina

    No more chess news since May 25? Surprised

  • 4 jaar geleden

    Ricardo33

    this is not addressed to you!!! this is for everybody!!!! stop arguing this is not heading us to anywhere!! he is the champion, ave kamski!!!!, but please change the tie break because is redicolous!!!

  • 4 jaar geleden

    qixel

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 4 jaar geleden

    Ricardo33

    you still arguing in a non-value way, we have nothing agaisnt kamski, we  do not agree in the WAY he won, now you are setting incorrect points of view about NO-BORN AMERICANS this is not correct!!!

  • 4 jaar geleden

    qixel

    pfs wrote:

    many strong players who may or could have advanced in our beloved game dropped out because of the flood of ex-commie masters

    Please provide us with a list of these many dropouts.  I would really like to know who they are. 

  • 4 jaar geleden

    pfs

    the ladies comment----when will a american win the title had alot of merit----when the ussr broke up it also killed future american chess players---all of a sudden we were taken over by the red exodus of chess players---our countries --olympic team and our championship should be for natural born players---many strong players who may or could have advanced in our beloved game dropped out because of the flood of ex-commie masters---now we have no idenity in the american school of chess---were are the young wolff---benjamin---christians

  • 4 jaar geleden

    Hermitage171

    To ModernCalvin and kevingong,

    It's nothing against the players or the quality of their play, but I really just hate the fact that Kamsky was able to beat Shulman for the championship without actually winning a single chess game against him. To me -- and this is just a personal opinion -- the tendency toward draws is one of the most uncool parts of the game of chess. (Note, for example, that it's easy to structure the game of go so that draws are all but impossible.) I'm not saying that it's necessarily easy to draw against a top pro with the black pieces and a time deficit, but to me it's just a deeply uninspiring goal. Trade pieces of equal value until there's not enough on the board to construct a decisive victory... very dull.

    As for what to do instead, I think that I was fairly clear in my last post. A 12-game match would be fine, but it's not necessary. The easiest thing to do is to have a match consisting of two games at a time, with players alternating colors. If the score is tied at the end of these two, you have another two. If you like, you can reduce the time control a little bit with each new pair. (Also, you'll want to reverse the order of who plays white first with each new pair.) Once you get down to time controls like 5 minutes with 10 second intervals, you can play several pairs back to back; after a few hours of play, the chances of reaching a decisive outcome are extremely high. There is no need for this 'draw odds' malarkey. 

  • 4 jaar geleden

    qixel

    renumeratedfrog wrote:

    When will a US-born person ever win the US chess championship? Haha

    Did you mean to use the word "ever"? Because if you did, here is a list of the US-born persons that have won the US Chess Championship (since 1936 when modern tournament play began):

    Arnold Denker
    Larry Evans (3 times)
    Arthur Bisguier
    Bobby Fischer (8 times)
    Robert Byrne
    John Grefe
    Larry Christiansen (3 times)
    Joel Benjamin (3 times)
    Nick de Firmian (3 times)
    Stuart Rachels
    Patrick Wolff (2 times)

    Instead of "ever", I think you meant to use the phrase "in the future", in which case your guess is as good as mine.

    Amy

     

  • 4 jaar geleden

    renumeratedfrog

    When will a US-born person ever win the US chess championship? Haha

  • 4 jaar geleden

    Olde_English800

    great play by both playerz. esp. wit kamsky after havin 25 minz on hiz clock compared to hiz opponent'z 60 n havin the black side of the board(im a black-sider myself. jus throwin that out there) n still bein able to hold hiz title even tho itz a draw. like i said, great play by both :-)
  • 4 jaar geleden

    PhilipN

    It would be fun to see what would happen if Nakamura and Kamsky played a match of at least 8 or 12 games:)

  • 4 jaar geleden

    Ricardo33

    Linares my friend, is the winbledon, the roland garros of chess!!!

  • 4 jaar geleden

    zankfrappa

    What is the next major chess event?

  • 4 jaar geleden

    FM VPA

    My hearty Congrats to Gata for keeping his nerves & winning the prestigious US Title!Kiss

  • 4 jaar geleden

    qixel

    I spent way too much time glued to the live feed from the US Chess Championship, but now that the excitement is over I feel kind of depressed.  Luckily, So You Think You Can Dance? starts on Thursday.  And Le Tour de France is not far away either.Smile

  • 4 jaar geleden

    zankfrappa

    IM Pruess,

    Shahade and Ashley mentioned that they were very surprised that Kamsky bid
    only 25 minutes and felt it may cost him the title.  Their reasoning is that
    Shulman would certainly not bid under 35 minutes so Kamsky should have bid
    at least 30 minutes as those 5 minutes may have been crucial.

  • 4 jaar geleden

    kevingong

    I can't believe anyone who actually watched the live commentary would call it "boring"; on the contrary, it was exciting!  I like the bidding system to keep it fair, however maybe they could have played rapid games first to see if that could have produced a winner.  For comparison, here was the tie-break method used for the 2006 world championship:

    • In the event of the tie-break, the players play four "rapid" games (each with a time limit of 25 minutes, plus 10 seconds per move).
    • If the score is still tied, this is followed by two "lightning" games (each with a time limit of 5 minutes, plus 10 seconds per move).
    • If the score is still tied, this is followed by a sudden death game: white has 6 minutes and needs to win, black has five minutes and needs to draw or win.

    (in actuality, only the 4 rapid games were needed, as the result was 2.5 - 1.5)
    The 2010 tie break rules were similar (but with more blitz games).

    I don't like the idea of it coming down to blitz games, so maybe this would be a good method:

    • In the event of the tie-break, the players play two "rapid" games (each with a time limit of 25 minutes, plus 10 seconds per move).
    • In the score is still tied, this is followed by another pair of "rapid" games (each with a time limit of 25 minutes, plus 10 seconds per move).
    • If the score is still tied, this is followed by a sudden death game: players bid from 0-25 minutes; the lowest gets black and draw odds.  White gets 25 minutes plus 5 seconds per move.  Black gets the bid time plus 5 seconds per move.
    If they don't want it to take so long, they could reduce the time controls a bit, or remove the second pair of rapid games.
Terug naar boven

Je reactie plaatsen: