Thursday, May 22, 2014

The chess world loses one of its most popular Grandmasters

Quote of the Day - "One mile. One true sentence. You go on from there." - Rachel Toor

GM Dragoljub Velimirovic of Serbia

“Not only have the floods in Serbia had their tolls, but also very sad news came today: GM Dragoljub Velimirovic passed away on May 22, 2014 at the age of 72. I hope it is the last bad news coming from that direction for some time.” These halting words of Turkish Grandmaster Suat Atalik were what I saw when I opened my Facebook page this evening. Serbian GM Velimirovic, known for his attacking style and the variation of the Sicilian Defense bearing his name, was a popular player among chess fans as well as his peers throughout his 65-year playing career.

Velimirovic was the son of Yugoslavian Women's chess champion Jovanka Velimirović, who started taking him to chess tournaments at the age of 7. Despite the shift in government politics in his home country, he lived in Belgrade since 1960 and died a citizen of the Republic of Serbia.

He won the Yugoslavian chess championship on three occasions and was awarded the Grandmaster title in 1973. He won two silver medals at the Nice Olympiad of 1974 (individual and team) and participated in three Interzonal tournaments as part of the world championship cycle.

His first recorded use of the Velimirovic Attack in the Sicilian Defense was in the 1962 Yugoslavian championship against Aleksander Bradvarevic, but it was not until 1965 that he first employed his trademark 9.0-0-0 against Peter Dely. As seen in the latter game starting with 27.Rxd4, his endgame play could also be impressive.

Velimirovic, D - Bradvarevic, Aleksander [B89]
YUG-ch Vrnjacka Banja (5), 1962
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qe2

8…a6 9.Bb3 Na5 10.0–0 b5 11.Rad1 Qc7 12.f4 Nxb3 13.cxb3 Bb7 14.f5 e5 15.Nf3 Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Bxe4 17.Ng5 Bxg5 18.Bxg5 d5 19.f6 0–0 20.Qg4 Qc5+ 21.Rf2 Rfe8 22.Be3 Qf8 23.Bc5 h5 24.Qg5 1–0

Velimirovic, D - Dely, Peter [B89]
Belgrade (2), 1965
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Be3 Be7 8.Qe2 0–0 9.0–0–0 Nxd4 10.Bxd4 Qa5 11.e5 dxe5 12.Qxe5 Qxe5 13.Bxe5 b6 14.f3 Bb7 15.Nb5 a6 16.Nd6 Bc6 17.Bd3 Nd7 18.Bg3 Nc5 19.c4 f5 20.Bc2 f4 21.Bf2 Rad8 22.Bxc5 bxc5 23.Ne4 Bxe4 24.Bxe4 Bf6 25.Kc2 Rb8 26.b3 Bd4

27.Rxd4 cxd4 28.Kd3 Rfd8 29.Rc1 a5 30.c5 Rb4 31.c6 Kf7 32.Rc5 Ra8 33.a4 Rxb3+ 34.Kxd4 Rb4+ 35.Ke5 Ke7 36.Bd3 Rd8 37.Bc4 Rc8 38.Bxe6 Rc7 39.Rxa5 Rb2 40.Bd5 Rxg2 41.h4 g5 42.hxg5 Rxg5+ 43.Kxf4 Kf6 44.Rb5 Re7 45.Be4 Rgg7 46.Bf5 Ra7 47.a5 Rgc7 48.Be4 Ra6 49.Rh5 Rca7 50.Rh6+ Ke7 51.c7 1–0

The Velimirovic attack remains fashionable today and has been utilized by many top players including former World Champion Viswanathan Anand. It has been a staple among the world’s elite correspondence masters for decades because of its many sharp lines and double-edged variations.

U.S. National Master Dennis Monokroussos, a frequent lecturer on chess openings, described a topical line in the Velimirovic Attack as follows: “In the Velimirovic Attack against the Classical Sicilian, White launches his pieces into the center and turns to a kingside attack, seemingly without caring how many of them are en prise at any given moment. White’s characteristic set-up makes a strong aesthetic impression, and often his concluding attack does as well, yet time after time Black has proven to have sufficient resources to hold the balance – even if they are found after a painful loss.”

Following are three positions from GM Dragoljub Velimirovic’s games displaying his tactical prowess. Rest in peace, Grandmaster Velimirovic.

Velimirovic, D - Ciric, Dragoljub
Belgrade, 1963

White mates in 2 moves

Velimirovic, D - Matulovic, Milan
Titograd, 1965

White mates in 4 moves

Velimirovic, D – Sofrevski, Jovan
Titograd, 1965

White mates in 8 moves

Same article in Susan Polgar's Chess Daily News and Information.

Monday, April 28, 2014

"Journal of Chess Research" launches this fall

Quote of the Day - "All too often in the international chess community many benefits of chess are assumed without any empirical research to support such claims. The problem is that there is a definite need to collect data systematically to determine what all of the benefits of chess are. The international chess community is in the enviable position to foster much needed research on chess and its many benefits." - William M. Bart, PhD, University of Minnesota

A new peer-reviewed academic magazine known as the Journal of Chess Research will be begin publication later this year with support from the Susan Polgar Foundation. As a result, empirical research that tests, extends or explores current theory concerning the benefits and scientific implications of the game of chess will be available in a single location.

Presently, there are no scholarly journals that relate specifically to chess research. Previous articles concerning chess research have appeared sporadically in other disciplines and many of these important articles have not been translated into English. Some researchers have remarked that little has been accomplished with respect to scientific research in chess, and what has been done is difficult to identify and retrieve. The articles that do exist continue to be fragmented, poorly cross-referenced and are not centrally indexed to facilitate review and further research. The Journal of Chess Research will bridge that gap.

William M. Bart, PhD, professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota, is known in the chess world as co-author of the 2003 “Functional MRI study of high-level cognition. I. The game of chess,” published in Cognitive Brain Research, 16, 26-31. Currently, Dr. Bart teaches a college level course entitled “Chess and Critical Thinking.” In accepting his appointment to the 20-member Editorial Board of the new Journal, he remarked:
"All too often in the international chess community many benefits of chess are assumed without any empirical research to support such claims. The problem is that there is a definite need to collect data systematically to determine what all of the benefits of chess are. The international chess community is in the enviable position to foster much needed research on chess and its many benefits."

As a result of these factors, a new world-wide organization known as the International Society for Chess Research (ISCR) has been formed. The
Journal of Chess Research has been designated as the official publication of the new group and will be available to all ISCR members as part of the annual membership fee.

The Journal of Chess Research will be published quarterly in Lexington, Kentucky, and distributed to university libraries, academicians, chess players, researchers and other interested parties both in printed and electronic formats. Each issue is intended to contribute broadly to awareness and understanding of the impact of chess on human development, psychology, cognition, philosophy, sociology, aging, business strategy, education and technology. Manuscripts that make strong empirical and theoretical contributions to the field of chess-related research will be solicited from scholars throughout the academic community, both in the United States and abroad, and will not be tied to any particular discipline, level of analysis or national context.

The Editorial Board, consisting of distinguished educators and physicians from five different countries, will review all articles in advance in order to ensure that contributions to the field meet rigorous academic standards, exhibit technical competence by researchers and topical relevance. Literature reviews will be accepted, at least initially, to generate a meaningful overview of the current status of chess research on a variety of topics such as chess in education, chess and mathematics, chess and cognitive development, chess and self esteem, chess and Alzheimer’s Disease, etc. Articles not previously available in English may also be accepted, if appropriate.

According to Dr. Joseph Ponterotto of Fordham University, also a member of the Journal’s Editorial Board, “The Journal of Chess Research will be open to multiple methodologies, including qualitative research, field and case studies, life story analysis and so forth, in addition to traditional quantitative and experimental research in various combinations. Many chess studies previously published in cognitive and experimental psychology journals are difficult to understand for the average student and scholar of chess research. The articles in the new journal will be published with the goal of being accessible and reader-friendly, to the extent possible, to a wide audience."

In addition, the Journal of Chess Research will provide an information and referral network to connect researchers and learners and to assist those seeking results and interpretations of research findings. This network will be supported by an interactive and engaging web site, scheduled to be unveiled in June, where profiles of personalities involved with chess research and links to copies of articles from all over the world will be available for examination and download.

Frank Niro, President of Chess Journalists of America, will serve as the Managing Editor of the new publication. Mr. Niro is a member of the adjunct faculty at Cornell University where he teaches Strategic and Business Planning in the Graduate Health Administration program. He is former President of the U.S. Chess Trust and is an award winning writer and editor.

Relevant articles between eight and twenty-five pages that conform to the style guidelines contained in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th Edition (APA-6) will be accepted on an ongoing basis. For articles written in a language other than English, abstracts that are translated into English may be submitted. If accepted for publication, the editorial staff will work with the author to get the entire article translated and consistently formatted.

All papers will be reviewed by the Editorial Board and notifications of acceptance will be made to the authors within 30 days of submission. Following acceptance, authors will be given an additional 15 days to submit a final manuscript. Deadlines for receipt of manuscripts for upcoming issues are as follows: Preview Issue – May 9th; Issue #1 – August 8th; Issue #2 - November 7th; Issue #3 – February 6th; Issue #4 – May 8th; Issue #5 – August 7, 2015.

Manuscripts should be attached in a Microsoft Word document and transmitted via e-mail with the subject heading Journal of Chess Research to the Managing Editor: Charts and images should be compatible with Adobe Design Standard CS6 software such as InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator. The Journal of Chess Research will be available in both print and digital formats. No fees will be charged to potential contributors.

Inquiries concerning membership in the International Society for Chess Research, proposals, abstracts, web site content and other matters should be mailed to the publication office at: Journal of Chess Research, 3735 Palomar Centre Drive, Suite 150, Lexington, KY 40513.

Click on image to enlarge.


The Benefits of Playing Chess, according to information collected by the Susan Polgar Foundation are as follows:

Improved test scores and academic achievement
Better mental clarity and overall health
Verbal reasoning skills as well as numerical aptitude
Enhanced creativity, concentration and critical thinking
Increased confidence and self-esteem
Development of memory skills
Ability to patiently plan ahead
Understanding the consequences of actions taken
Perceiving a situation from the other person’s perspective

The Cognitive Benefits of Chess are listed below:

Develop analytical, synthetic and decision-making skills, which young people can transfer to real life.

Learn to engage in deep and thorough chess research to help build confidence in their ability to do academic research.

Help children gain insights into the nature of competition which will help them in any competitive endeavor.

When youngsters play chess they must call upon higher-order thinking skills, analyze actions and consequences, and visualize future possibilities.

In countries where chess is offered widely in schools, students exhibit excellence in the ability to recognize complex patterns and consequently excel in math and science.

The above information concerning the benefits of chess was presented at the SPF fundraiser at the Hungarian Consulate in New York City, May 2013.

Journal of Chess Research web site

International Society for Chess Research web site

Announcement on Susan Polgar Daily News and Information

Chess Benefits in all areas! backlink


Thursday, April 24, 2014

Upcoming Ohio Valley Chess Tournaments

Pictured above is the 3-D Sculpture in wood of Poseidon's Quake and Poseidon's Phantom by Professor James D. Mellick of Cedarville University in Southern Ohio. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

I received a note from Robert Chenault of Cincinnati concerning upcoming tournaments in Central and Southern Ohio, some of which are not advertised in Chess Life. I am planning to attend the one this weekend, so please stop by and say hello.


This coming Saturday, April 26th - Chess Earth will host the highly anticipated:
Cincy Tornado “Kibitizers” chess tournament (Game in 60 with 5 second delay)
Register online - Entry Fee $25 or pay $30 at site. Visa, MasterCard, Amex accepted at site. First Baptist Church (corner of Winton Rd. and Sharon Rd.)


May 9 – CCC Loves Quick Chess Tournament –

May 10 – Cincinnati vs. Dayton - Chess Match held at the Dayton Chess Club. and

May 16 – Women’s Championship -

May 17 – Ohio Elementary State Championship –

May 17 – Blunders & Hypocrites – Cincy Tornado -

May 23-25 – 56th Gem City Open –
5-SS, 30/90 d5, SD/60 d5 (2-day schedule, rd. 1 G/90 d5) at Dayton Chess Club, 18 West 5th St., Dayton, OH 45402. PRIZE FUND GUARANTEED 3 sections: OPEN, open to all. GTD $1200, 800, 501, 400, 301; U2000: $500, 300 Premier-U1800. $501, 301; U1600: $500, 300 Reserve-U1400. $501, 301; U1200: $500, 300. EF: 3-day $88, 2-day $89 if mailed or registered online by 5/16, then $98 at site 2 or 3 day. Free to SM & above-($85 deducted from winnings), DCC mbrs $5 disc. Ohio Grand Prix event, OCA members deduct $3 from EF. 3-day schedule: Reg. Fri. 5- 6:30pm, Rds.: Fri 7pm; Sat 2pm, 7:30pm; Sun 9:30am, 3pm. 2-day schedule: Reg. Sat. 8:30- 9:30am. Rd.1 at 10am, then merges with 3-day. Re-entry: $30. Any player who loses Fri night may re-enter for $30 and loss will not count in tournament standings. One 1/2 pt bye available in Rds. 1-4 (request prior to R1). Unrated players may play in any section with prizes limited to 1/3 except in OPEN with balance to next player(s). $25 upset prize each section.
CROWN PLAZA HOTEL “Where Elegance Meets Style in the Heart of Downtown” beautiful 4 star hotel at 33 E 5th St., 1/2 block from playing site, (888)-233-9527, with the incredible rate of only $89/nite (up to 4) plus tax, ask for Gem City Open rate, 9 May cutoff, reserve early (soccer tmt coming to town the same weekend), free parking and a magnificent view of the Miami Valley from the restaurant on the top floor. FREE COFFEE, TEA, & Donuts Saturday and Sunday Mornings at the Dayton Chess Club for players, parents, and spouses. ENTRIES Mail to Dayton Chess Club, 18 West 5th St., Dayton, OH 45402. ONLINE REGISTRATION WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON. No cks at site.

May 30 – Bug House Championship -


June 6 – Tim Lake Tandem Team Chess Tournament -

June 14 – Summer Pawn Storm XXIII -

June 21 – Emotional Chess – Cincy Tornado -

June 27-29 – Columbus Open –


July 11 – CCC Quick Chess Championship Day -

July 12 – Heat Wave Pawn Storm XXIV -

July 19 – Unorthodox Openings – Cincy Tornado -

July 25-27 – Ohio Masters and

For further information, contact .

My last visit to the site of this weekend's tournament at First Baptist Church in Cincinnati, OH on Nov. 9, 2013

Interesting analysis of R vs. N endgames at The Chess

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Editorial Boards maintain role as "Keystones" in Science and Academia

Photo above courtesy of Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research.

I am in the process of recruiting Editorial Board members for the new Journal of Chess Research and have learned a great deal about the value of Editorial Boards as they relate peer reviewed academic journals as well as the career paths of prospective members. Below are excerpts from an article written by Laure Haak more than a dozen years ago in the Women in Neuroscience newsletter of April 2001. Although her principal audience at the time consisted primarily of female laboratory scientists, I would like to think that the gender equality issues have been substantially resolved in the intervening decade (thinking of my daughter and wife here) and that, otherwise, her words still ring true today.

Serving as a reviewer and editor for a scholarly journal in your field is a key step in the career progression of a research scientist. It is a lot of work, and can take a toll on your lab and the time you can give to students. The payoff comes not from financial compensation, but with the increased visibility being an editor bestows. Indeed, not only do you increase your visibility, but you also increase your knowledge of your field. "You have to get into editing to get to the top of your field," says Lisa Bero, associate professor of clinical pharmacy and health policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. "That's how you know what is going on."

Experience on an editorial board can be a significant contributing factor to career progression in the research sciences. In this article, current and former editors of bioscience journals comment on the editorial review process, describe how editors and reviewers are chosen, and offer concrete suggestions on how to get involved in editorial review.

The Editorial Review Process

The process of review is dependent upon the editorial structure of a given journal. Journals such as Nature, Neuron, and Science have full-time editorial staffs who handle the review process. Editors are generally assigned papers based on areas of specialization and often manage 10 manuscripts per week. These editors have the final say on whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Journals with part-time editors handle the review process differently.

Usually a full-time managing editor sends papers to one or more members of the editorial review board, who may either provide reviews or solicit reviewers and then recommend acceptance or rejection based on reviewer comments.

Board members in this model may or may not have final say in the decision to publish.

Carol Barnes, professor of psychology and neurology at the University of Arizona in Tucson, is a reviewing editor at the Journal of Neuroscience, a 3-year appointment for which she receives no compensation. In 2 years Barnes has processed almost 700 papers to peer reviewers. Based on the reviewer comments, she makes a recommendation to the senior editor that each manuscript be accepted, re-reviewed after revisions, or rejected. "Sometimes the senior editor does not agree with my recommendation. There is back-and-forth on this. It is a good process and nobody takes offense." Barnes has received funding from the university to hire an assistant to provide clerical support to assist her with the manuscript review process. She considers herself fortunate, because "without this help, I would have had to decline this position."

The Selection of Editorial Board Member

Cynthia Kuhn, professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, is one of about 15 associate editors at the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET). Like Barnes and Bero, she runs a lab, teaches classes, and serves as an editor part-time. "I was asked to be associate editor when the editor of the journal changed. The editor knew of me by reputation because I often publish in JPET. For at least this journal, the editor personally selects associate editors--there is no 'application' process. I have this position until a new editor comes along or the current one wants to replace me. Remaining an associate editor is directly linked to performance, if we get reviews done in a timely way, and interact positively with authors so they are not calling the editor to yell at him, we keep our positions. The position is an honorific--I get no salary. I am compensated a fixed amount per manuscript for the costs of mailing and the like."

Word-of-mouth was equally important for Barnes and Bero, who were both invited to serve as reviewing editors by an editor-in-chief. Barnes had served as an associate editor for the Journal of Neuroscience and was recommended for the reviewing editor position by the outgoing editor. Her expertise casts a broad net over basic electrophysiology, development, aging, and learning and memory, which gave her an interdisciplinary foundation great for a reviewing editor position. Bero had previously served on the editorial board for the British Medical Journal and was well known by the editor of Tobacco Control. Both Barnes and Bero stress the significance of their prior experience as reviewers who were considered to do complete and timely reviews.

How to Be a Good Reviewer

Journal editors are always looking for good reviewers and a great one is a rare and wonderful commodity. A great reviewer knows a lot about their field and something about the fields outside their own. They understand and can articulate the difference between an incremental advance of interest only to the cognescenti and a major leap forward of interest to the broader community. Furthermore, they are willing to do this frequently."

How do editors find reviewers? Editors seem to tailor their own criteria. Barnes considers three key factors: has the person published in the best journals, do others cite the person's work, and is there evidence the person can review manuscripts quickly and thoroughly?

For other editors, a face-to-face meeting gives a better impression of reviewer quality than papers written. The Nature journals do not maintain an editorial board, and editors find reviewers at meetings and by word of mouth. Aamodt, for example, attends over 10 meetings per year, where she spends much of her time looking for potential reviewers and encouraging people to volunteer. "If you sound sharp and enthusiastic, I'll add you to my list." Nature editors usually calibrate a new reviewer in parallel with two others they know and trust before they are added to the reviewer database.

Dr. Bero summarizes things this way: "Take every opportunity to peer-review when asked. This is how editors find people. Sometimes a senior person will pass a review on to a junior colleague. You can ask the journal editor if it is ok to do a co-peer review. But if you do this, make sure the junior person gets their name on the review letter."

All the editors agreed: The bottom line is that you need to get your name out there.

Laure Haak, pictured left, remains quite active in the scientific community.
Go here
to read her 2014 blog entries. She currently works as Executive Director of ORCID, an open, non-profit, community-based effort to provide a registry of unique researcher identifiers and a transparent method of linking research activities and outputs to these identifiers. ORCID is unique in its ability to reach across disciplines, research sectors, and national boundaries and its cooperation with other identifier systems.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Vigorous Mental Exercise and Alzheimer's Disease

Click on above image to enlarge.

For many years, I have been suggesting that chess impacts Alzheimer's and other age-related diseases and symptoms by decreasing risk factors in some meaningful way. It wasn't an original idea, of course, as I was convinced about 15 years ago by octogenarians Arnold Denker and Harold Dondis who both claimed that they had never met, or even heard of, a chess Grandmaster with Alzheimer's Disease. Small sample size to be sure, but not even one?

More recently, I renewed the discussion with my wife, Tash, who is actively working on her PhD in gerontology (the study of aging) at the University of Kentucky. And now, with the new Journal of Chess Research about to launch, I have become a voracious consumer of all things written and available (in English at least) on the subject of chess research, with a special focus and interest in chess and aging.

My personal interest in gerontology is narrow, but genuine. It involves not only the game of chess, but the sport of distance running as well (but that's another topic), and how chess impacts social capital, improves inter-generational awareness and slows down the aging process -- or perhaps, as Tash would argue, utilizes high level mental gymnastics in a way that re-wires the brain to compensate for Alzheimer's Disease. In other words, playing chess doesn't prevent or cure Alzheimer's, but it helps seniors cope with it better.

Still, there is no generally accepted body of scientific evidence to support that statement...yet. But it's coming. Of this I am certain.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Webster University Wins 2014 College Chess Title

Members of the Webster University chess team are crowned 2014 collegiate champions during the awards ceremony at New York Athletic Club.

The Webster University chess team defeated a tough team from Texas Tech University, 3 games to 1, in the third and final round of the 2014 President's Cup, commonly referred to as the Final Four of College Chess. This is the second consecutive win for Webster. Texas Tech was the champion in 2011 and 2012.

GM Anatoly Bykhovsky earned the distinction of being the only player to play on four consecutive collegiate championship teams. He played for Texas Tech in his freshman and sophomore years and moved to Webster with the SPICE Program preceding his junior year. Remarkably, GM Bykhovsky did not lose a single game in four years of President's Cup play.

This year's runner-up team from University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) has won the championship six times in the 14 years of the event. That is the most championships for any university, followed by four victories for University of Texas at Dallas, and two each by Texas Tech and Webster University. Webster head coach Susan Polgar has been the coach of the last four championship teams. She relocated from Texas Tech to Webster in June 2012. UMBC took second place in this year's competition by sweeping Illinois 4-0 in the final round. Texas Tech finished third and Illinois placed fourth.

This is the fourth year that the President's Cup was sponsored by Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. and the first year that it was hosted by the New York Athletic Club. Mike Hauffpauir was the tournament director for the fourth time.

Final Standings:

Webster University - 9.5 points
University of Maryland Baltimore County - 7 points
Texas Tech University - 6.5 points
University of Illinois - 1 point

Games from Round 3

Zherebukh,Y (2706) - Le,Q (2795) [D17]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 1]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 e6 7.f3 Bb4 8.e4 Bxe4 9.fxe4 Nxe4 10.Bd2 Qxd4 11.Nxe4 Qxe4+ 12.Qe2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 Qd5+ 14.Kc3 0-0 15.Qe3 b5 16.Be2 Nd7 17.Nxd7 Qxd7 18.Qc5 Qd8 19.Rhd1 Qf6+ 20.Rd4 Rad8 21.Rf1 Qh6 22.Rdf4 Qxh2 23.Qxc6 Qg3+ 24.Qf3 Qg5 25.axb5 Qxb5 26.Bxc4 Qa5+ 27.Kb3 Rd7 28.Qc3 Rb8+ 29.Kc2 Qg5 30.R1f2 Qg6+ 31.Kc1 Rbd8 32.b3 Qg5 33.Kb2 g6 34.g4 a5 35.Ka3 Qc5+ 36.Kb2 Qg5 37.Ka3 Qc5+ 38.Ka2 Qg5 39.Kb2 Rb7 40.Qf3 Rdd7 41.Qc3 Qc5 42.Ba6 Rbc7 43.Qxc5 Rxc5 44.Bc4 Kg7 45.Ka3 h5 46.gxh5 Rxh5 47.Ka4 Re5 48.Bb5 Rb7 49.Be8 f5 50.Rg2 Re1 51.Ka3 Kf8 52.Bxg6 Ra1+ 53.Kb2 Rh1 54.Rc4 Rh3 55.Rc8+ Ke7 56.Rc3 Rh8 57.Bxf5 Rb6 58.Bc2 a4 59.Rg7+ Kf6 60.Rg6+ Ke7 61.Rg7+ Kf6 62.Rg6+ Ke7 63.Rc7+ Kd6 64.Ra7 axb3 65.Bxb3 Rh2+ 66.Ka3 Re2 67.Rg3 Ke5 68.Ra4 Re4 69.Ra5+ Kf6 70.Rh3 Ke7 71.Ra8 Kd6 72.Ra7 Re2 73.Rc3 Re1 74.Rd3+ Ke5 75.Re7 Re2 76.Re8 Re1 77.Rh3 Re4 78.Rd3 Re1 79.Kb2 Re4 80.Kc3 Rc6+ 81.Kb2 Re2+ 82.Ka3 Rb6 83.Ka4 Rd6 84.Rh3 Kd4 85.Rh4+ Re4 86.Rxe4+ Kxe4 87.Bxe6 Rb6 88.Bc4+ Kd4 89.Bb5 Rh6 90.Kb4 Rh1 91.Rd8+ Ke3 92.Bc4 Ra1 93.Kc5 Ra5+ 94.Bb5 Kf4 95.Re8 Kf5 96.Kb4 Ra1 97.Kc3 Rd1 98.Bd3+ Kf6 99.Kd4 Kf7 100.Re3 Ra1 101.Bc4+ Kf6 102.Rf3+ Ke7 103.Rf7+ Kd6 104.Rf6+ Ke7 105.Rh6 Rd1+ 106.Bd3 Kd7 107.Ke3 Kc7 108.Be4 Rd6 109.Rh5 Rd1 110.Kf4 Kd6 111.Rh6+ Ke7 112.Ke5 Re1 113.Rh7+ Ke8 114.Rb7 Re2 115.Rb3 Ke7 116.Rb4 Re1 117.Ra4 Re2 118.Ra7+ Ke8 119.Kf4 Kd8 120.Bf5 Re7 121.Ra8+ Kc7 122.Kg5 Kd6 123.Kf6 Re1 124.Rd8+ Kc5 ½-½

So,W (2760) - Moradiabadi,E (2658) [E11]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 2]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Nbd2 d5 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.a3 Bd6 7.c5 Be7 8.b4 0-0 9.e3 a6 10.Bd3 Nd7 11.Bb2 f5 12.Qc2 Bf6 13.h4 h6 14.0-0-0 Rb8 15.Rdg1 b6 16.g4 fxg4 17.Ng5 hxg5 18.Bh7+ Kh8 19.Rxg4 gxh4 20.Nf3 g5 21.Nxg5 Bxg5 22.f4 Nf6 23.Rxg5 Nxh7 24.Qxh7+ 1-0

Gorovets,A (2603) - Meier,G (2701) [E20]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 3]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.dxc5 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qa5 8.Nd2 Qxc3 9.Rb1 Ne4 10.Rb3 Qa5 11.Rb5 Qc3 12.Bb2 Qxd2+ 13.Qxd2 Nxd2 14.Kxd2 f6 15.Bg2 Kd8 16.Rb1 Ke7 17.Kc3 Rd8 18.Bc1 Kf7 19.Bf4 Re8 20.Bd6 b6 21.cxb6 axb6 22.a3 Ba6 23.Rxb6 Rec8 24.Bxc6 dxc6 25.Bc5 h5 26.Rd1 Rc7 27.a4 e5 28.a5 Bb7 29.Kb4 Kg6 30.Rd6 Kf5 31.f3 e4 32.Rd4 exf3 33.exf3 g5 34.h3 Kg6 35.g4 hxg4 36.hxg4 Kg7 37.Rd6 Rf7 38.Bd4 Ra7 39.c5 Kg6 40.Bc3 Kg7 41.Ka3 Kg6 42.Kb3 Kg7 43.Kc2 Kg6 44.Kd2 Ra8 45.Ke3 Re8+ 46.Kf2 Ra8 47.Rb2 Re8 48.Rb6 Ra8 49.Rb1 Re8 50.Re1 Ref8 51.Kg3 Rh8 52.Ree6 Rhf8 53.f4 gxf4+ 54.Kxf4 Bc8 55.Re3 Rh7 56.Rxc6 Rh1 57.Kg3 Rg1+ 58.Kf2 Rc1 59.Rf3 Bxg4 60.Rfxf6+ Rxf6+ 61.Bxf6 Kf5 62.Bd8 Ke4 63.Bb6 Bd7 64.Rd6 Bb5 65.Kg3 Rc3+ 66.Kg4 Rd3 67.Re6+ Kd5 68.Rh6 Rc3 69.Kf4 Rc4+ 70.Kf5 Bd7+ 71.Kg5 Bb5 72.Rd6+ Ke5 73.Rd2 Ra4 74.Bc7+ Ke6 75.Rd6+ Ke7 76.Bd8+ Ke8 77.Bb6 Ke7 78.Kf5 Ra2 79.Re6+ Kd7 80.Rd6+ Ke7 81.Kf4 Rf2+ 82.Kg3 Rc2 83.Kf3 Rc3+ 84.Ke4 Rc2 85.Rh6 Kd7 86.Kd4 Rc1 87.Rh7+ Ke6 88.Rh8 Rc4+ 89.Ke3 Rc2 90.Rh6+ Ke5 91.a6 Bxa6 92.Bc7+ Kd5 93.Rxa6 Rc3+ 94.Kf4 Rc4+ 95.Kf5 Rxc5 96.Be5 Rc6 97.Ra1 Rc4 98.Rd1+ Kc6 99.Ke6 Kc5 100.Bd6+ Kc6 101.Ra1 Re4+ 102.Be5 Rc4 103.Ra8 Kb7 104.Rb8+ Kc6 105.Rd8 Kc5 106.Bd6+ Kc6 107.Ke5 Kb5 108.Kd5 Rc6 109.Rh8 Rb6 110.Rh3 Rb7 111.Ra3 Kb6 112.Bc5+ Kb5 113.Rb3+ Ka6 114.Ra3+ Kb5 115.Bd6 Kb6 116.Ra8 Kb5 117.Ra1 Kb6 118.Ra8 Kb5 119.Rd8 Rb6 120.Rd7 Ka4 121.Bc5 Rb8 122.Bd6 Rb5+ 123.Kd4 Rb1 124.Ra7+ Kb3 125.Ra3+ Kc2 126.Rh3 Rd1+ 127.Kc5 Rd3 128.Rh2+ Rd2 129.Rh6 Kd3 130.Rh3+ Ke4 131.Rh4+ Kf5 132.Rf4+ Ke6 133.Re4+ Kf5 134.Re5+ Kf6 135.Kc6 Rf2 136.Kd7 Rf5 137.Re8 Kg5 138.Ke6 Kg4 139.Rg8+ Rg5 140.Rf8 Rg6+ 141.Ke5 Kg3 142.Bb8 Kg2 143.Ke4 Re6+ 144.Be5 Rg6 ½-½

Robson,R (2714) - Torres,L (2381) [B90]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 4]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.f3 Be7 9.Qd2 0-0 10.0-0-0 Nbd7 11.g4 b5 12.g5 b4 13.gxf6 bxc3 14.Qxc3 Nxf6 15.Na5 Rc8 16.Nc6 Qe8 17.Nxe7+ Qxe7 18.Qa5 Rc6 19.Kb1 Rfc8 20.b3 Qb7 21.Rg1 Ne8 22.Rd2 f5 23.Bh3 Qf7 24.exf5 Bxf5 25.Bxf5 Qxf5 26.Qd5+ Kh8 27.Rg5 Qf8 28.f4 Rc3 29.Qf3 Nc7 30.Qf2 Ne6 31.Rg4 Qf5 32.Rg2 exf4 33.Bd4 R3c7 34.Bb2 d5 35.h4 h6 36.Qb6 Rc6 37.Qa7 R8c7 38.Qf2 Kh7 39.Qf3 Qe4 40.Qd1 d4 41.Rge2 Qf5 42.Rf2 Rd7 43.Bxd4 Rcd6 44.Bc3 Rxd2 45.Rxd2 Rxd2 46.Qxd2 f3 47.Qf2 Nc5 48.Qg3 Ne6 49.Qf2 Kg6 50.Kc1 Kh7 51.b4 Qe4 52.Kd2 Nf4 53.Qd4 Qe2+ 54.Kc1 Ne6 55.Qd2 Qe4 56.a4 Kg6 57.b5 axb5 58.axb5 Kh5 59.b6 g5 60.hxg5 hxg5 61.Qe1 Qf4+ 62.Bd2 f2 63.Qe2+ Qg4 64.Qxf2 Nd8 65.Qh2+ Qh4 66.Qe2+ Qg4 67.Qe8+ 1-0

Members of the 2014 Championship team from Webster University speak with their Provost while waiting for the last two games of round 3 to finish. Pictured, left to right, are Head Coach Susan Polgar, Ray Robson, Anatoly Bykhovsky, Wesley So, Fidel Corrales and Webster University Provost Julian Schuster. (photo courtesy of Susan Polgar Daily News and Information)

Rosen,E (2398) - Huschenbeth,N (2620) [A28]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 5]

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.a3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 0-0 8.Nxd5 Qxd5 9.Bd3 Kh8 10.b4 f5 11.Bc4 Qd6 12.h4 Be6 13.Bb2 Bxc4 14.Qxc4 e4 15.Ng5 Bf6 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Rd1 Rae8 18.g3 Ne5 19.Qb3 c5 20.bxc5 Qa6 21.d4 exd3 22.f4 Ng4 23.Rxd3 h6 24.Nf7+ Rxf7 25.Qxf7 Qxd3 26.Qxe8+ Kh7 27.h5 Qb1+ 28.Kd2 Qb2+ 29.Kd3 Nf2+ 30.Kc4 Qc2+ 31.Kb5 Qb3+ 32.Ka5 Qxa3+ 33.Kb5 Qa6+ 34.Kb4 Nxh1 35.g4 Qc6 36.Qf7 Qe4+ 37.Ka5 fxg4 38.f5 Qc6 39.e4 Qxc5+ 40.Ka4 b5+ 41.Ka5 Qb6+ 42.Kb4 a5+ 43.Ka3 Qc5+ 44.Kb2 Qd4+ 0-1

Kore, (2585) - Luo,X (2261) [B30]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 6]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.Bxc6 bxc6 5.0-0 Ne7 6.d3 Ng6 7.Ng5 e5 8.Qh5 Be7 9.Nc3 d6 10.Ne2 Bxg5 11.Bxg5 f6 12.Be3 0-0 13.f4 exf4 14.Nxf4 Ne5 15.Qe2 g5 16.Nh3 Bg4 17.Qd2 Rb8 18.b3 Bxh3 19.gxh3 Qe8 20.Qg2 Rb7 21.Rf5 Rg7 22.Qg3 h5 23.Kf1 Qe7 24.Ke2 d5 25.Raf1 dxe4 26.dxe4 c4 27.Bd4 Nd7 28.Qe3 cxb3 29.axb3 Rg6 30.Ra1 c5 31.Bc3 Qd6 32.Qg3 Qc6 33.Qd3 Re8 34.Rxa7 Rxe4+ 35.Kd2 Rg7 36.Ra6 Qb7 37.Kc1 c4 38.bxc4 Rf4 39.Re6 Nf8 40.Rexf6 Qh1+ 41.Kb2 Rb7+ 42.Rb5 Rxf6 43.Bxf6 Nh7 44.Qg6+ Kf8 45.Be7+ 1-0

Auger,M (2256) - Bregadze,L (2518) [B06]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 7]

1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Be3 Nf6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.Qd2 Bg4 7.Be2 Nc6 8.h3 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 e5 10.d5 Nd4 11.Bxd4 exd4 12.Ne2 Re8 13.Qxd4 Nxe4 14.Qb4 Ng5 15.Kf1 Nxf3 16.gxf3 Qf6 17.Qb3 a5 18.a4 Ra6 19.Qb5 Qe7 20.Ng3 Rb6 21.Qxa5 Bxb2 22.Rd1 Qh4 23.Qd2 Qxa4 24.h4 Rb4 25.Ne4 Rd4 26.Nf6+ Kh8 27.Qxd4 Bxd4 28.Nxe8 Be5 29.Re1 Qxe8 0-1

Paikidze,N (2371) - Indusekar,A (2125) [D45]
New York, NY (3), 06.04.2014
[Board 8]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.e3 e6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 c5 9.dxc5 Bxc5 10.0-0 Bb7 11.a3 Nbd7 12.Qe2 0-0 13.e4 Qc7 14.g3 Ne5 15.Bf4 Nfd7 16.Rac1 Nxf3+ 17.Qxf3 Ne5 18.Qe2 f6 19.b4 Bb6 20.Na4 Qd8 21.Bxe5 bxa4 22.Bf4 Kh8 23.Be3 e5 24.Rfd1 Bd4 25.Rc4 Rc8 26.Bc2 Rxc4 27.Qxc4 Qc8 28.Qxc8 Rxc8 29.Bxa4 Bxe3 30.fxe3 Bxe4 31.Bd7 Rd8 32.Rc1 Kg8 33.Rc7 f5 34.Kf2 g5 35.Ra7 Kf8 36.a4 Rb8 37.Rxa6 Rxb4 38.Bxf5 Bxf5 39.Rf6+ Kg7 40.Rxf5 Rxa4 41.Rxg5+ Kf6 42.Rh5 Ra7 43.Kf3 Rb7 44.h4 Ra7 45.Rh6+ Kg7 46.Re6 Ra5 47.Ke4 Ra4+ 48.Kf5 h5 49.Rg6+ Kh7 50.Rg5 Kh6 51.Kxe5 Ra5+ 52.Kf4 Ra2 53.Rd5 Ra3 54.Rd6+ Kg7 1-0

additional stories/links:
The Christian Science Monitor, April 7, 2014
The Washington Post, April 7, 2014
Additional photos here

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Round 3 showdown set for this morning

Media center at the 2014 Final Four of College chess. Pictured during round 2 are (standing, r.) Al Lawrence, GM Anatoly Bykhovsky; (seated, l. to r.) professional game designer Mark Herman, NYAC chess club president Alec Diacou, GM commentators Irina Krush & Max Dlugy, Frank Niro (photo courtesy of Paul Micou)

Defending champion Webster University left the door open for the team from Texas Tech University (national champions in 2012 and 2012) with a narrow 2.5-1.5 match victory over University of Maryland - Baltimore County in Round 2 of the 2014 President's Cup. Texas Tech defeated Illinois 3-1 to remain a point behind going into their head-to-head match-up with Webster in this morning's final round.

Second round results:

Bd. 1 Huschenbeth (UMBC) vs. Le (Webster) 0-1
Bd. 2 So (Webster vs. Kore (UMBC) 0-1
Bd. 3 Bregadze (UMBC) vs. Meier (Webster) 1/2-1/2
Bd. 4 Robson (Webster) vs. Folser (UMBC) 1-0
Bd. 5 Rosen (Illinois( vs. Zherebukh (Texas Tech) 1/2-1/2
Bd. 6 Moradiabadi (Texas Tech) vs. Luo (UMBC) 1-0
Bd. 7 Auger (UMBC) vs. Gorovets (Texas Tech) 0-1
Bd. 8 Faik (Texas Tech) vs. Indusekar (UMBC) 1/2-1/2


Huschenbeth,N (2620) - Le,Q (2795) [B48]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 1]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Bd3 Nf6 8.0-0 b5 9.Nxc6 Qxc6 10.Be2 Bd6 11.Bf3 Be5 12.Bd4 d6 13.a3 Bb7 14.Qd3 0-0 15.Rad1 Qc7 16.Qe3 Bc6 17.Bb6 Qb7 18.Ba5 Rac8 19.Rfe1 Rfe8 20.g3 h6 21.Bg2 Ng4 22.Qe2 f5 23.Qf1 f4 24.h3 Nf6 25.g4 Nd7 26.Qd3 Qa7 27.Bb4 Nc5 28.Bxc5 dxc5 29.Ne2 c4 30.Qf3 Bxb2 31.Qxf4 Bxa3 32.e5 Rf8 33.Qg3 Bc5 34.Rf1 Qb7 35.Bxc6 Qxc6 36.Nf4 Rf7 37.g5 hxg5 38.Qxg5 Qf3 39.Nh5 Be7 40.Qg4 Qf5 41.f4 Rcf8 42.Kg2 Qxc2+ 43.Rf2 Qf5 44.Qe2 Bh4 45.Rff1 c3 46.Kh2 Kh8 47.Rg1 g6 0-1

So,W (2760) - Kore,A (2585) [D94]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 2]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Nf3 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd2 Be6 7.Qb3 dxc4 8.Qxb7 Nbd7 9.Ng5 Bf5 10.e4 e5 11.exf5 exd4 12.fxg6 dxc3 13.gxf7+ Rxf7 14.bxc3 Rb8 15.Qc6 Qe7+ 16.Be2 Ne5 17.Qe6

17...h6 18.Qxe7 Rxe7 19.0-0-0 hxg5 20.Bxg5 Re6 21.Rd4 Nd3+ 22.Bxd3 cxd3 23.Rxd3 Reb6 0-1

Bregadze,L (2518) - Meier,G (2701) [E08]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 3]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Bg2 c6 7.Qc2 0-0 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Bf4 a5 10.Rd1 Nh5 11.Bd2 Nhf6 12.Bf4 b5 13.Ne5 Bb7 14.b3 Nxe5 15.dxe5 Nd7 16.cxd5 cxd5 17.e4 dxe4 18.Nd2 Rc8 19.Qb1 Qc7 20.Nxe4 Nxe5 21.Qb2 Bxe4 22.Bxe4 f6 ½-½

Robson,R (2714) - Folsor,S (2311) [C70]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 4]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nge7 5.0-0 g6 6.c3 Bg7 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 b5 9.Bc2 d5 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Re1+ Be6 12.Bg5 Qd7 13.Nbd2 0-0 14.Nb3 Bg4 15.h3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Ndb4 17.Be4 f5 18.Bxc6 Qxc6 19.Qg3 Nd5 20.Rac1 Qb6 21.Rc5 f4 22.Qf3 Nf6 23.Rc6 Qb8 24.Re7 Ne8 25.Nc5 Rf5 26.Ne6 Rxg5 27.Nxg5 Nf6 28.Rxf6 1-0

Grandmaster Irina Krush, reigning U.S. Women's Champion and President's Cup commentator, explores the Central Park area during her break between rounds 1 and 2 (photo courtesy of GM Max Dlugy)

Rosen,E (2398) - Zherebukh,Y (2706) [A16]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 5]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.Nf3 g6 5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.Ne5 Qd6 7.Nxc6 Qxc6 8.Qxc6+ bxc6 9.g3 Bg7 10.Bg2 Be6 11.b3 0-0-0 12.Bb2 Nxc3 13.Bxc3 Bxc3 14.dxc3 Rd6 15.Rd1 Rhd8 16.Rxd6 Rxd6 17.Be4 c5 18.Bc2 Bf5 19.e4 Bg4 20.f4 Bf3 21.0-0 Be2 22.Rf2 Rd2 23.Bb1 c4 24.Kg2 Rb2 25.bxc4 Rxb1 26.Rxe2 Rc1 27.e5 Rxc3 28.Kh3 Rxc4 29.Kg4 h6 30.h4 Rc3 31.Rg2 Kd7 32.h5 Ra3 33.Rh2 gxh5+ 34.Rxh5 Rxa2 35.Rxh6 c5 36.Kf5 Ra4 37.e6+ fxe6+ 38.Rxe6 c4 39.Re3 Rb4

40.Ra3 Rb7 41.Rc3 Rc7 42.Ke5 a5 43.Kd4 a4 44.Ra3 Ke6 45.g4 c3 46.Rxc3 Ra7 47.Ra3 Ra8 48.Kc5 Kf6 49.Kb5 e5 50.fxe5+ Kxe5 51.Rxa4 Rxa4 52.Kxa4 Kf6 53.g5+ Kxg5 ½-½

Moradiabadi,E (2658) - Luo,X (2261) [D32]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 6]

1.Nf3 c5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.e3 e6 5.d4 d5 6.cxd5 exd5 7.Bb5 cxd4 8.exd4 a6 9.Bxc6+ bxc6 10.Ne5 Qc7 11.0-0 Bd6 12.Bf4 0-0 13.Rc1 Qb7 14.Na4 Qb5 15.Bg3 Bb7 16.Nd3 Be7 17.Bc7 Rac8 18.Nc3 Qc4 19.Bb6 a5 20.b3 Qa6 21.Bc5 Rce8 22.Re1 Bxc5 23.Nxc5 Qa7 24.Qd2 Bc8 25.f3 h6 26.Rxe8 Rxe8 27.Re1 Re7 28.Re3 Kf8 29.Kf2 Rxe3 30.Qxe3 Nd7 31.N3a4 Qc7 32.Nxd7+ Bxd7 33.Nc5 Bf5 34.g3 Bc8 35.Ke1 Qe7 36.Qxe7+ Kxe7 37.Kd2 h5 38.a3 g5 39.a4 Kd6 40.Kc3 Kc7 41.b4 axb4+ 42.Kxb4 Bf5 43.a5 Bc2 44.f4 gxf4 45.gxf4 h4 46.Na4 Kb7 47.Nb6 Kc7 48.Kc5 Bd3 49.Na4 Be2 50.Nc3 Bd3 51.Na2 Bb5 52.Nb4 Kb7 53.Nxd5 Ka6 54.Nc7+ Kxa5 55.Nxb5 1-0

Auger,M (2256) - Gorovets,A (2603) [B22]
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 7]

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.cxd4 d6 7.Bc4 Nb6 8.Bb5 dxe5 9.Nxe5 Bd7 10.Bxc6 Bxc6 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.0-0 e6 13.Be3 Be7 14.Nc3 0-0 15.Qe2 Nd5 16.Ne4 Qd7 17.Rfe1 Rab8 18.b3 f5 19.Nc5 Bxc5 20.dxc5 e5 21.Bc1 e4 22.Bb2 Rbe8 23.Qc4 Qe6 24.Rad1 f4 25.Rd4 e3 26.fxe3 fxe3 27.Rg4 Rf7 28.Qd4 Ree7 29.Rg5 e2 30.h4 Rf1+ 31.Kh2 Rxe1 32.Rxg7+ Kf8 33.Qf2+ Rf7 34.Rxf7+ Qxf7 35.Qxe1 Qf1 0-1

Aleskerov,F (2385) - Indusekar, A (2125)
New York, NY (2), 05.04.2014
[Board 8]

draw. both players' score sheets were illegible


Webster University: 6.5 game points (2 match points)
Texas Tech University: 5.5 game points (2 match points)
University of Maryland - Balt. Cty: 3 game points (0 match pts.)
University of Illinois: 1 game points (0 match points)

Texas Tech needs to defeat Webster by at least 2.5 to 1.5 in round 3 to reclaim the title in 2014. A tie match will give the title to Webster because of higher games points.

Saturday, April 5, 2014

Webster, Texas Tech take opening matches

View of the playing hall during round 1 at the New York Athletic Club where the 2014 President's Cup, commonly referred to as the Final Four of College Chess, is being held this weekend.

Webster University swept University of Illinois 4-0 while Texas Tech defeated UMBC 2.5 - 1.5 in round 1 of the 2014 President's Cup. Top seeded Webster, who out-rated their feisty opponents by an average of 400 points, won with apparent ease. But Illinois fought hard and the matches on the top three boards were tense until the endgame. The outcome of the Texas Tech - UMBC encounter was in doubt until the closely contested final game between Grandmasters Yaroslav Zherebukh (Texas Tech) and Niclas Huschenbeth (UMBC) concluded in an exciting win for Zherebukh.

Webster will face UMBC in round 2 this afternoon while Texas Tech takes on Illinois, setting up an expected showdown between Webster and Texas Tech for the championship tomorrow morning. Details concerning round times, tournament location, and online availability of live broadcast of the games is located here.

2014 College Final Four - Round 1
Time Control: G/90 + 30-second increments per move

Bd. 1 WHITE: GM Quang Liem Le (Webster, 2795) vs. BLACK: FM Eric Rosen (Illinois, 2398) 1-0

Bd. 2 WHITE: NM Michael W. Auger (Illinois, 2256) vs. BLACK: GM Wesley SO (Webster, 2760) 0-1

Bd. 3 WHITE: GM Fidel Corrales Jimenez (Webster, 2632) vs. BLACK: Xin Lou (Illinois, 2261) 1-0

Bd. 4 WHITE: Akshay Indusekar (Illinois, 2125) vs. BLACK: GM Anatoly Bykhovsky (Webster, 2581) 0-1

Bd. 5 WHITE: GM Yaroslav Zherebukh (Texas Tech, 2706) vs. BLACK: GM Niclas Huschenbeth (UMBC, 2620) 1-0

Bd. 6 WHITE: GM Askshayraj (UMBC, 2585) vs. BLACK: GM Ethan Moradiabadi (Texas Tech, 2658) 0-1

Bd. 7 WHITE: IM Andrey Gorovets (Texas Tech, 2603) vs. IM Levan Bregadze (UMBC, 2518) 1/2-1/2

Bd. 8 WHITE: IM Nazi Paikidze (UMBC, 2371) vs. NM Luis Carlos Torres (Texas Texh, 2381) 1-0

Le,Q (2795) - Rosen,E (2398) [E21]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
Board 1

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 b6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Qc2 Bb7 6.a3 Bxc3+ 7.Qxc3 d6 8.Bg5 h6 9.Bh4 g5 10.Bg3 Ne4 11.Qc2 h5 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 Bxd5 14.0-0-0 Bb7 15.e3 Qe7 16.Bb5+ Nd7 17.Ne5 Nxg3 18.Bxd7+ Kf8 19.Bc6 Qxe5 20.Bxb7 Rb8 21.Qxc7 Rxb7 22.Qxb7 Nxh1 23.Rxh1 Qf5 24.Qf3 Qxf3 25.gxf3 Ke7 26.Kd2 Rc8 27.h4 Kf6 28.hxg5+ Kxg5 29.f4+ Kg4 30.f3+ Kxf3 31.Rxh5 Ke4 32.Rh7 Rc7 33.Rh8 Re7 34.Ke2 Kd5 35.Kd3 Kc6 36.e4

36...f5? 37.exf5 Kd5 38.f6 Rf7 39.Rh6 a6 40.a4 b5 41.a5 b4 42.Ke3 Rc7 43.Kf3 Ke6 44.f7+ Kxf7 45.Rh7+ 1-0

Auger,M (2256) - So,W (2760) [C90]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
Board 2]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.d3 h6 10.Nbd2 Na5 11.Bc2 c5 12.Nf1 Nc6 13.a4 Be6 14.Ng3 Rc8 15.axb5 axb5 16.h3 d5 17.exd5 Qxd5 18.Qe2 Nd7 19.Nd2 Nb6 20.Nf3 Nd7 21.Nd2 Bh4 22.Nge4 Nd8 23.Nf3 Be7 24.Ng3 Bd6 25.Ra6 Bb8 26.Qe4 Rc6 27.Ra5 Qxe4 28.dxe4 Rb6 29.Be3 Nb7 30.Raa1 Rc8 31.Red1 Kf8 32.Nh4 b4 33.Ba4 Nf6 34.Nhf5 Bc7 35.cxb4 Rxb4 36.Bc6 Bb8 37.Bxb7 Rxb7 38.Ra5 Nd7 39.Rxd7 Bxd7 40.Bxc5+ Rxc5 41.Rxc5 Rxb2 42.Rd5 Rb7 43.Rd2 Ba7 44.Kh2 f6 45.h4 g6 46.Nd6 Rb4 47.h5 Rd4 48.Rxd4 exd4 49.hxg6 d3 50.Nc4 Bxf2 51.Nh5 Be6 52.g7+ Ke7 53.Nb2 d2 54.Nf4 Bb3 55.g3 Kf7 56.Kg2 Bd4 57.Nfd3 Bc2 58.e5 fxe5 0-1

Corrales Jimenez,F (2632) - Luo,X (2261) [B20]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 3]

1.e4 c5 2.b3 e6 3.Bb2 d5 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bb5 Rb8 6.Nf3 a6 7.exd5 axb5 8.dxc6 bxc6 9.Ne5 Bb7 10.Ne4 Nh6 11.0-0 Be7 12.Nd3 c4 13.bxc4 bxc4 14.Bxg7 Rg8 15.Bxh6 cxd3 16.Bf4 Ra8 17.Rb1 Ba6 18.c3 Qd5 19.Re1 Rg6 20.Rb6 Bc5 21.Rb1 Kf8 22.Qf3 Bb5 23.h4 f5 24.Ng5 Qxf3 25.Nxf3 Ra4 26.h5 Rg8 27.Bh6+ Ke7 28.Bg5+ Kd6 29.Ne5 Kc7 30.Be3 Bd6 31.Bd4 Bxe5 32.Bxe5+ Kd7 33.Rb4 Rg4 34.Rxg4 fxg4 35.Kh2 Bc4 36.Re4 Bb5 37.Re1 Bc4 38.Re4 Bb5 39.Rxa4 Bxa4 40.Kg3 Bd1 41.Kf4 Ke7 42.Ke4 Be2 43.Kd4 Kd7 44.Kc5 g3 45.Bxg3 Bxh5 46.a4 Kc8 47.Kd6 Be2 48.Be5 Bf1 49.g3 Bh3 50.Kxc6 Bg4 51.a5 Bf3+ 52.Kd6 Bd5 53.a6 Bc4 54.f4 Bxa6 55.Kxe6 h5 56.Ke7 1-0

Indusekar,A (2125) - Bykhovsky,A (2581) [E90]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 4]

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0-0 5.d4 d6 6.h3 Na6 7.Bg5 Qe8 8.Bd3 e5 9.d5 Nh5 10.g4 Nf4 11.Bc2 h6 12.Bh4 f5 13.gxf5 gxf5 14.Bg3 Nc5 15.Nh4 fxe4 16.Nxe4 b6 17.Qd2 Qh5 18.Nxc5 bxc5 19.Bd1 Qg5 20.Bc2 Rb8 21.Be4 Nh5 22.Qxg5 hxg5 23.Ng6 Re8 24.0-0-0 Kf7 25.Rd3 Nf4 26.Rf3 Bf6 27.Nxf4 exf4 28.Re1 Bf5 29.Bxf5 Rxe1+ 30.Kd2 Rh1 0-1

The President's Cup, contested annually since 2002 when this trophy was donated by UT-Dallas President Franklyn Jenifer, is a perpetual award in honor of each year's winner of the Final Four of College Chess.

Zherebukh,Y (2706) - Huschenbeth,N (2620) [A48]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 5]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.h3 d6 5.Nbd2 0-0 6.e4 Nbd7 7.Bc4 c6 8.e5 dxe5 9.dxe5 Nd5 10.Bh2 b5 11.Be2 Bb7 12.0-0 Nc7 13.Nb3 Ne6 14.Na5 Qxa5 15.Qxd7 Qc7 16.Qxc7 Nxc7 17.Nd4 Rfd8 18.Rfd1 e6 19.Nb3 Rac8 20.Nc5 Ba8 21.a4 b4 22.Rd6 Bf8 23.c4 bxc3 24.bxc3 Ne8 25.Rxd8 Rxd8 26.Ne4 Be7 27.Rb1 c5 28.f3 Nc7 29.Bg3 Nd5 30.Bf2 Kg7 31.Bf1 Nb6 32.Nxc5 Rc8 33.Rb5 Bxc5 34.Rxc5 Rxc5 35.Bxc5 Nxa4 36.Bd4 Bc6 37.Ba6 Kf8 38.c4 Nb6 39.Bc5+ Ke8 40.Bd6 Na4 41.Kf2 Kd7 42.Ke3 f6 43.Kd4 fxe5+ 44.Bxe5 Nb6

45.Bb8 Ke7 46.Bxa7 Nd7 47.Bb5 e5+ 48.Ke3 Kd6 49.h4 Bb7 50.g4 Nf6 51.Ba4 Nd7 52.g5 Ba8 53.Bc2 Nf8 54.Be4 Bxe4 55.Kxe4 Nd7 56.c5+ Kc6 57.Bb6 1-0

Kore,A (2585) - Moradiabadi,E (2658) [E20]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 6]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.g3 0-0 5.Bg2 d5 6.Nf3 dxc4 7.0-0 Nc6 8.e3 Rb8 9.Qe2 b5 10.Rd1 Qe7 11.e4 e5 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.Bf4 Qe7 15.a4 a6 16.axb5 axb5 17.h3 Be6 18.g4 Rfc8 19.Bg5 h6 20.Be3 Nd7 21.f4 f6 22.e5 Bxc3 23.bxc3 fxe5 24.Ba7 Ra8 25.Bxa8 Rxa8 26.fxe5 c6 27.Qe3 Rf8 28.Rd6 Bd5 29.Rxd5 cxd5 30.e6 Ra8 31.exd7 Qxd7 32.Qc5 d4 33.cxd4 c3 34.d5 c2 35.Kh2 Rc8 36.Qg1 0-1

Gorovets,A (2603) - Bregadze,L (2518) [A33]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 7]

1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 e6 3.d4 c5 4.Nf3 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Nc6 6.a3 d5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bg5 Be7 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 Be6 11.0-0 Rc8 12.Rc1 h6 13.Bh4 a6 14.Nxc6 Rxc6 15.Bf3 Rc4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.Qxd5 Rxc1 19.Rxc1 Bxb2 20.Rb1 Qxd5 21.Bxd5 Rc8 22.Bxb7 Rc1+ 23.Rxc1 Bxc1 24.a4 a5 25.Kf1 Kf8 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.Kf3 Bd2 28.Ke4 Be1 29.f4 g6 30.g4 Bd2 31.Kd3 Bc1 32.h4 f6 33.Be4 g5 34.fxg5 fxg5 35.h5 Kf6 36.Kd4 Bb2+ 37.Kd5 Bc1 38.Kd4 Bb2+ 39.Kc5 Bc1 40.Kb6 Ke5 41.Bf5 Bxe3+ 42.Kxa5 Kd6 43.Ka6 Kc7 44.Kb5 Bf2 45.Bc2 Bg1 46.Bb3 Ba7 47.a5 Bg1 48.a6 Ba7 49.Bd1 Kd6 50.Kc4 Ke5 51.Ba4 Kd6 52.Kd3 Ke5 53.Bb3 Kf4 54.Be6 Ke5 ½-½

Paikidze,N (2371) - Torres,L (2381) [D87]
New York, NY (1), 05.04.2014
[Board 8]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 0-0 9.0-0 Nc6 10.Be3 Bg4 11.f3 Bd7 12.Qd2 Qc7 13.Rac1 Rad8 14.Bh6 Bc8 15.Rfd1 Na5 16.Bd3 e5 17.Bg5 f6 18.Bh4 Be6 19.d5 c4 20.Bc2 b6 21.Rb1 Nb7 22.Bf2 Bd7 23.a4 Rf7 24.Nc1 Bf8 25.Na2 Bc5 26.Nb4 Nd6 27.a5 bxa5 28.Na6 Bxf2+ 29.Qxf2 Qc8 30.Rb8 Qxa6 31.Rxd8+ Kg7 32.Rb1 Nb5 33.Qc5 Nxc3 34.Rbb8 Ne2+ 35.Kf2 Nd4 36.Rxd7 1-0

Standings after round 1 of 3

Webster University 1-0 (4 game points)
Texas Tech 1-0 (2.5 game points)
UMBC 0-1 (1.5 game points)
Illinois 0-1 (0 game points)

Remaining Matches:

Round 2 (Saturday 5 pm NY time)

(3) University of Maryland Baltimore County - (1) Webster University
(4) University of Illinois - (2) Texas Tech

Round 3 (Sunday 9 am NY time)

(4) University of Illinois - (3) University of Maryland Baltimore County
(2) Texas Tech - (1) Webster University

Sponsored by: Booz Allen Hamilton
Chief Arbiter: Michael Hoffpauir
Live commentary to spectators, and online at Max Dlugy and Irina Krush

Second round pairings:

Bd. 1 Huschenbeth (UMBC) vs. Le (Webster)
Bd. 2 So (Webster vs. Kore (UMBC)
Bd. 3 Bregadze (UMBC) vs. Meier (Webster)
Bd. 4 Robson (Webster) vs. WGM Sabina Folser (UMBC, 2311)
Bd. 5 Rosen (Illinois( vs. Zherebukh (Texas Tech)
Bd. 6 Moradiabadi (Texas Tech) vs. Luo (UMBC)
Bd. 7 Auger (UMBC) vs. Gorovets (Texas Tech)
Bd. 8 Faik Aleskerov (2385, Texas Tech) vs. Indusekar (UMBC)

Thursday, April 3, 2014

2014 President's Cup (Final 4 of College Chess) set for this weekend

Quote of the Day: Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way. - Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.

March Madness concludes this weekend in the sport of college basketball. But did you know that the Final 4 of College Chess will be contested this weekend as well? Teams from Texas Tech, University of Illinois, University of Maryland - Baltimore County (UMBC) and Webster University will face off across the chess board at New York City Athletic Club’s Olympic Suites. Spectators are welcome, but please note that there is a strict dress code at NYAC which will be enforced throughout the event.

The four teams qualified at the Pan American Intercollegiate Championship held this past December in Lubbock, TX. My previous coverage of the PanAms can be found here:
Top teams face off in rd. 4 of PanAm Intercollegiate
Webster takes big match with Texas Tech; UT-Dallas also at 4-0
PanAm update: Five teams fighting for 3 remaining spots...
Webster sweeps; UMBC, Illinois and Texas Tech advance

Further details are provided below:


Saturday, April 5 –
-9:45 am: The tournament begins with an opening ceremony

-10 am – 3 pm: First round of play
Boards 1 thru 4: Webster (1) vs. Illinois (4)
Boards 5 thru 8: Texas Tech (2) vs. UMBC (3)

-5 pm – 10 pm: Second round of play
Boards 1 thru 4: Webster (1) vs. UMBC (3)
Boards 5 thru 8: Texas Tech (2) vs. Illinois (4)

Sunday, April 6—
-9 am – 2 pm: Third (final) round of play
Boards 1 thru 4: Webster (1) vs. Texas Tech (2)
Boards 5 thru 8: UMBC (3) vs. Illinois (4)

-2 pm: Tie-Break/Shootout match (if necessary)

-2:30 pm (approximately): Awards/closing ceremony and presentation of the President’s Cup

Please note: Matches consist of four boards per team and each team can carry up to two alternates. All four teams will compete against each of the other teams in a head to head match. Irina Krush and Max Dlugy will provide commentary and the games should be available on and live commentary by Max Dlugy and Irina Krush is available on (by following GM Max Dlugy). I will add information concerning the official web site and access to live commentary and game scores as soon as it becomes available.

Team Rosters (in alphabetical order):

Texas Tech

Yaroslav Zherebukh
Elshan Moradiabadi
Andrey Gorovets
Luis Carlos Torres
Faik Aleskerov
Head Coach: GM Alex Onishchuk

University of Illinois

Eric Rosen
Xin Luo
Michael Auger
Akshay Indusekar
Head Coach: GM Yury Shulman

University of Maryland - Baltimore County

Niclas Huschenbeth
Akshayraj Kore
Levan Bregadze
Nazi Paikidze
Sabina Foisor
Head Coach: GM Sam Palatnik

Webster University

Ray Robson
Georg Meier
Wesley So
Le Quang Liem
Fidel Corrales Jimenez
Anatoly Bykhovksy
Head Coach: GM Susan Polgar

Note: The seedings, based on rating order are 1.Webster 2.Texas Tech, 3.UMBC and 4.Illinois and in order of qualifying, 1.Webster, 2.UMBC, 3.Illinois and 4.Texas Tech.

Some notes on the New York Athletic Club—

Address and phone number: NY Athletic Club
180 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019 | Tel: (212) 247-5100

Spectators are welcome. However, all attendees must be in compliance with the NYAC dress code. Business attire is the standard. A tie is not necessary, although always appropriate. Jeans, sneakers and t-shirts are not permitted. Slacks, dress shoes, a collared shirt and jacket are perfect. The dress code is located here.

· Photographers may only take only shoot in the area(s) for which permission has been granted, in this instance the Olympic suites where the tournament is being held. Unless permission is granted by the Tournament Director (Mike Hoffpauir), Video and Photography are not permitted after the first 10 minutes of each round.

· No cell phones, chess engines or any electronic communication devices will be allowed in in the playing venue.

Sponsored by: Booz Allen Hamilton
Chief Arbiter: Michael Hoffpauir
Time Control: 60-minutes, with a 30-second time increment

Susan Polgar, head coach of the 2013 College Chess Championship team from Webster University, was recognized as 2012-13 Coach of the Year by President's Cup Tournament Organizer, Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Susan was also the head coach of the 2011 and 2012 winning teams from Texas Tech University.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

The landscape for peer reviewed academic journals is certainly changing

I just read a helpful synopsis of the changes in the publishing industry as they relate to academic journals on the web site of the Association of American Publishers. And, by the way, the use of "loose" instead of "lose" in the above .pdf image did not go unnoticed, but it is an example of one of the many challenges that need to be addressed in the publication of research articles.

With the impending announcement concerning the launching of a new Journal of Chess Research, with which some of my readers are quite familiar, I am reprinting the pertinent text and links here. Thank you to AAP for the hard work of pulling this information together in a cohesive and meaningful manner, and for your willingness to share the perspective of the publishing industry as the world changes from print to predominantly digital formats. I will provide links to the locations of the announcement referred to above as soon as it is available.

The scholarly publishing community plays an indispensable role in the scientific research enterprise by facilitating scholarly communication, disseminating scientific information, managing the scientific record and coordinating the peer review process. Publishers’ continuing investments in digital platforms with the latest internet capabilities have helped to deepen their contributions to the science community and the public--expanding accessibility, improving interoperability and fueling innovation.

There is an ongoing public debate about how to expand access to published research literature to the research community and the public, while ensuring continued quality, integrity, preservation and sustainability of scholarly communications. Publishers share the goal of widening access and have been at the forefront of the effort that has made more scholarly information available to more users than at any time in history.

The following is intended to help answer questions about scholarly publishing and access to scholarly literature. Read more about Open Access and NIH Public Policy on their separate AAP pages. (material here is provided courtesy of the Association of American Publishers, a 425-member association of the premier publishers of high-quality entertainment, education, scientific and professional content.)

What is involved in publishing research?

The publishing process is large, complex and costly. In recent years, publishers collectively have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the transition from print to electronic delivery, and in the process have built and continue to refine a robust digital electronic environment for delivery of information to their readers. Publishers supply editorial services and incur expenses. Even though some editors volunteer their time, many larger journals employ salaried high-level professional editors or staff editorial offices. High-quality page composition, copyediting, layout and design, scanning, and tagging bibliographic and reference data must be managed whether an article is prepared to be read online or in print. Peer review is a tightly managed process. Maintaining and periodically updating a digital archive requires substantial resources, as do launching new journals and maintaining and enhancing online platforms to improve speed, access and functionality.

Information technology has replaced or reduced some production costs but not entirely, and digital technologies have brought new and different costs into the picture. Most costs will not significantly decrease under open access. At a high quality publication, staffing and editorial costs largely remain the same under either open access or subscription-based editorial models. Archiving costs are even higher in the electronic era because electronic archiving requires building the service, regularly updating the platform and software, and continuously maintaining comprehensive searchable sites with millions of linked articles, costs that will continue under any access model. Publishers have invested heavily in systems to take in manuscripts and shepherd them throughout the review process. These systems have helped to reduce the time between submission of an article and its first appearance on the web, accelerating the availability of cutting edge research to the community.

Professional publishing has its costs. The scientific publishing industry must continue to deliver high-quality, peer-reviewed content. The existing business models of publishing are based on the principle that copyright enables publishers to invest resources to create, improve, innovate, and exclusively enter its products (i.e., content) into the stream of commerce to the public. Publishers can and do experiment with alternative models, but a publisher cannot provide these services for free.

Do publishers support expanding access to information?

Absolutely, this is a publisher’s mission. Publishers are in business to provide access to research, not limit it. The very nature of publishing is to make all information widely available to the public as well as to researchers.

Every year publishers invest extensively to support and enhance access to new scientific information. In the last two decades, publishers have developed new technological advancements that have dramatically improved the efficiency and quality of scientific communication. Publishers have explored and implemented a variety of business models to make content as widely available as possible, including a range of distribution and access models.

A direct result is the public has more access to more information in more formats through more media than ever before. These capabilities support more researchers submitting more articles, and more journals distributing more information to users, educators, practitioners, students, and the public than at any time in history.

Isn’t there a need to make published research more accessible to researchers?

There are very few gaps in researchers’ ability to access published research. Journals are openly available through libraries and at institutions to most people involved in scientific research. Access is available to the full text of articles online going back hundreds of years.
Researchers in developing countries now access published research through Research4Life, a public-private partnership of publishers, UN agencies, and universities. This program provides free or low cost access to academic and professional peer-reviewed content online in over 7,500 peer-reviewed international scientific journals, books and databases.
Authors themselves also make their work accessible to the research community. Journals generally allow the authors to place their manuscripts on personal or institutional websites or repositories, distribute the copies of the final published copies of their articles to colleagues, to incorporate them in subsequent work, or to use them in classroom teaching.

More than 2/3 of the researcher respondents in a 2008 study of peer review by the Publishers Research Consortium described their access to scholarly journals literature as good or excellent. Researchers rank “access to research journals” very low on their overall list of concerns.

Nevertheless, should the public have access to research that is funded by the taxpayer?

Yes, and they do. The public has access to published articles through private libraries, university libraries (which are generally accessible to the public), hospital libraries, medical society libraries, research centers, public libraries via interlibrary loan, and often directly from the publisher upon request. The agencies that fund research already have the option to make available to the public the research reports that they receive from authors.

It’s important to note, however, that while taxpayers may fund the costs of conducting research, they do not fund the costs of publishing articles written after the research is completed and professionally edited, vetted, organized and published. So while the information upon which articles are based should be a matter of public record, the articles themselves, covered by copyrights and organized in the form of journals, are the work product of the efforts of publishers. The cost of subscriptions or author fees is necessary to recoup the considerable cost of validating, certifying, and publishing the articles that discuss and document those research findings beyond the reports and data generated by the research and on file with the funding entities.

Do publishers support wide access to information?

It is the mission of publishers to make information as widely available as possible, not to limit it. The very objective of the publishing endeavor is to make scientific information widely available in an organized manner to the public as well as to researchers. Publishers invest heavily to support and enhance access to and the availability of new scientific information. In the last two decades, publishers have developed numerous technological advancements that have tremendously improved the efficiency and quality of dissemination of scientific communication. Publishers explore new technologies and apply a variety of business models best suited to making content as widely available as possible, including open and free access models.

Publishers’ efforts have provided the public more access to more information in more formats and faster than ever before. They have increased efficiencies to accommodate more researchers who are submitting more articles to more journals. The result is faster dissemination of more information to more researchers, educators, practitioners, students and members of the public than ever before.

Can the organization of peer review be done for free?

Probably not. In a recent global study commissioned by the Publishing Research Consortium, 85 percent of scientists indicated that they believe peer review greatly helps scientific communication, while 93 percent of them believe peer review is necessary. Scientific publishers have been at the forefront of innovations that have improved and continue to improve the peer review process. However, this is not free of expense.

Scientific publishers process more than a million papers every year through a rigorous vetting with help from hundreds of thousands of distinct referees. While it is true that peer reviewers themselves are usually not paid, publishers invest hundreds of millions of dollars in managing the peer review process. Managing peer review uses the latest communications technologies and requires large and sophisticated electronic resources (databases of referees, their areas of expertise and current assignments, the status of papers under review, etc.), associated support personnel, and many paid full- and part-time editors.

How important is peer review?

Extremely. Peer review identifies and validates research and innovation. It encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline. The process can help to avoid unsubstantiated scientific claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal opinions. Peer review specifically identifies weaknesses in scientific papers and ensures that the content of a scientific paper is both novel and advances the scientific record. In fact, industry estimates suggest that approximately half of all papers submitted for publication are rejected in their initial submission because they do not sufficiently meet a journal’s criteria. Scientists tend to rely upon the editorial process and peer review as validation of quality, and it is almost universally accepted in support of the research process.

The importance of the process has been underscored in light of high profile cases of scientific fraud. The instances of a few authors successfully publishing fraudulent or fabricated data in major journals call for oversight that is more rigorous by the entire scientific publishing industry. Several cases focus on conflicts of interest in the scientific research community where authors failed to disclose financial support for research that had perceived or obvious implications for the companies that provided that support. Today, it is incumbent upon publishers to be as rigorous as possible in the peer review process to help uncover financial conflicts of interest by reviewers, editors, and authors and to thoroughly evaluate articles and associated materials for signs of scientific fraud -- both before and after publication. The costs of additional checks on the process are mostly borne by publishers.

Publishers are also supporting a shared plagiarism detection system called CrossCheck designed to detect instances of unauthorized use of articles previously published. This system is entirely financed by the publishing community.

Additional questions?

What are some of the ways people can access articles for free?
How have publishers advanced innovation in scientific publishing?
Do publishers provide access to journals in developing countries?
Do publishers add value to scholarly articles?
What is the value of the U.S. professional and scholarly publishing industry?

The answers to these questions can be found on the source web site. Please go here to dig deeper.

More on Academic Journals