Amateur: 1st: Alejandro Ruiz, 6-0; 2nd: Wendell Salveron, 5-1; 3rd: Naollin Olguin, 4½-1½; U1600: 1st: Anna Karapetyan, 3½-2½; 2nd-3rd: Henry Wang, Ryan Hughes, Daniel Gong, Zheng Zhu; Yash Pershad, Daniel Lin, David Minasyan, 3-3; U1400: Hariharan Ramachandran, Darren Chow, 3-3; U1200: Robert Bryan Martin, 1-5; Unrated: Theodore Zhenyu Gao, 2½-3½
Hexes: 1st: Richard Henderson, 3-0; 2nd-3rd: Jimmy Sweet, Aldrich Ong, 2-1.
White allows his opponent to obtain two passed Queenside pawns in exchange for posting a Rook on the seventh rank. When the game was adjourned at move 31, Lipschütz and the spectators (Steinitz among them) were certain that Black must win. The combination initiated by White’s 32nd move brought a rude awakening.
Blackburne – Lipschütz
New York, 1889
D55 QUEEN’S GAMBIT DECLINED
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 b6 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3 Bb7 7. Rc1 Nbd7 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 0-0 10. 0-0 Ne4
Black has completed his development without difficulty (White should have tried to exploit the weakened c6 square with some combination of Qa4, Bb5 and Ne5), and he now begins to take the initiative, occupying his outpost on e4.
11. Bf4 c5 12. Qe2 f5 13. Rfd1 c4 14. Bxe4 fxe4 15. Ne5 Nf6 16. g4 Qe8 17. Qf1 Bd6 18. h3 Rd8 19. Qg2 b5
Black has a space advantage and chances to create a passed pawn on the Queenside, so White must try to stir something up on the g-file.
20. Ne2 b4 21. Ng3 Nd7 22. Nxd7 Rxd7 23. Ne2 Bxf4 24. Nxf4 Rdf7 25. g5 Rf5 26. Kh1 a5 27. Rg1 Bc8 28. Qg3 Qa4 29. b3 cxb3 30. axb3 Qxb3 31. Rc7 a4 32. g6 h6 33. Rxg7+
33. ... Kxg7 34. Nh5+ Rxh5 35. Qc7+ Kf6 36. Qd6+, Black resigns
In the USCF rules, there are examples of players getting portions of different prizes for which they are eligible, e.g. 1/4 each of 4 different prizes for which they tied.
In the National Open this year, I got 1/4 of the U2400 prize, but I was told that I was not entitled to (up to) 3/4 of the place prize for which I tied.
A) Is this really correct?
B) If so, how is this logical or fair?
To answer A), please know what you're talking about.
“Please note that Regular Members NO LONGER RECEIVE CHESS LIFE MAGAZINE.
(True in the sense that the current proposal calls the $29 membership “Regular” and the $42 one “Premium.” Since the “Premium” is identical to what is now known as “Regular,” this is semantic twaddle.)
“LIFE MEMBERS NO LONGER RECEIVE CHESS LIFE UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY REQUEST IT.”
(Hardly sounds onerous. Some of them are dead, and the USCF really ought to check.)
“Now, even as I type this, they are sitting in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at a meeting in which they are contemplating the final destruction of the federation by stopping the publication of Chess Life magazine.”
(Aside from the fact that the EB can’t do any of this without a vote of the Delegates, it’s nonsense. Since memberships run for at least a year, and printing contracts run even longer, there would be no effect for at least two years even if everyone chose the no-printed-magazine option – which isn’t going to happen.)
Now, what are the real issues that ought to be addressed? I have three problems with the proposal:
1) Do the numbers really add up? Of course, if we get a lot of new members at the new rate, income will go up, but that’s the same kind of smoke and mirrors that got the USCF into the current mess. Let’s take the end cases. If no one takes the new rate – no effect. If everyone immediately takes it – the USCF would take a short-term hit, after which it would do very well if membership and tournament attendance remained the same. Neither of these is sufficiently likely to be worth considering. At some point in between, the cost of printing and mailing is supposed to go down more quickly than the income from the reduced membership rates. Where, and how fast? (If one person switches, you’re not going to be able to print one less magazine.) I’d like to see an analysis and graphs of this, by someone who understands the subject and has neither an axe to grind nor an ox to gore. That pretty much excludes all politicians.
