Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Haunted Lewis Chess Pieces?

Judith Weingarten, author of the excellent blog Xenobia, Empress of the East, sent along the following, for which I thank her! 

Haunted Chessmen
November 25, 2011
From Strange History.net


[Excerpted]

***This post is dedicated to Invisible***
Invisible writes in with the news that the Lewis Chessmen are about to go on exhibition in New York. And Beach took this as a prompt for one of his favourite archaeological stories. The unnamed Lewis farmer in the following account was one Malcolm ‘Sprot’ Macleod.

In 1831 a high tide on the coast near Uig in the Isle of Lewis washed away a sand-bank and exposed a cave in which there as a small beehive-shaped building rather like the little domestic grinding querns to be found in the Highlands. A labourer working near found it, and, thinking it might contain some treasure, broke into it. He found a cache of eighty-four carved chessmen ranged together. They had an uncanny look, and he flung down his spade and ran, convinced that he had come on a sleeping company of fairies.

[In] the narrative above, from the great Katharine Briggs, continues with poor Malcolm being sent back to get the chessmen by his furious wife.
The greater part of them [67 of 78] are now in the British museum. Replicas have been made of them, but the originals, all mustered together, are much more impressive. A tradition has risen about them. It is said that the guards who take the guard-dogs round at night cannot get them to pass the Celtic [sic] chessmen. They bristle and drag back on their haunches. So perhaps the Highlander’s superstition can be excused.

The chess pieces are actually Norse in origin and were probably made in Scandinavia, quite possibly in Norway, which ruled the Western Isles at this time. But in Gaelic legends chess games between mortals and fairies are a commonplace, perhaps because chess was seen as a ‘game of kings’.

As to those poor dogs, Katharine Briggs is always reliable and she will certainly have come across this tale in her endless fairy hunting. It remains to be seen though whether it is just third-hand London rumour or a folk belief from the staff of the British Museum itself.

************************************
I don't know who Katharine Briggs is -- but I too, wonder if there is anything more to the intriguing notion that the pieces might be "haunted."  It seems plausible to me that a simple laborer coming across the wondrously carved pieces for the first time, with those large bulging, staring eyes of theirs, might have been a little spooked by the sight of all of them lying there, seeming to stare right at him!  In the 1830s, away from the big cities, the legends of the land would still have been close in the hearts of the local people.  Who knows - perhaps the laborer at first mistook the pieces for fairies themselves -- you know, "The Wee Little People"...

I looked through what resources I have in my library, but there was no mention direct mention of the "laborer" discovering the pieces and running away because they frightened him!  Indeed, accounts I've read online generally say that there is no report of how the pieces were first discovered other than the well known "facts" (the location of the discovery and the interesting fact that they were evidently "buried" in a sort of oven or stone cache of one sort or other).  But - read on for yourself, and check out Note 8 at the very end. 

I did find some information about how the pieces first came to the attention of the public, in H.J.R. Murray's "A History of Chess" (pages 758-762, including hand-drawn illustrations of some of the pieces in the British Museum): 

The Lewis chessmen were discovered in 1831 in a sand-bank at the head of the Bay of Uig, on the west coast of the island of Lewis, one of the outer Hebrides.  There is no circumstantial account of the discovery, but it appears that they were found in a small chamber of dry-built stone, resembling an oven, about 15 feet below the top of the sand-bank.  The chessmen were exhibited by Mr. Roderick Ririe at a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, April 11, 1831, but before the members had raised the money to purchase them Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe stepped in and bought 10 of the pieces, while the remaining 67 chessmen, 14 tablemen, and a buckle were bought for the British Museum.  On the dispersion of Mr. Sharpe's collection, the Lewis chessmen, now 11 in number, Mr. Sharpe having obtained another one from Lewis, were purchased by Lord Londesborough, and at the sale of the latter's collection in 1888 they were purchased by the Society of Antiquaries for the Scottish National Museum.  All the game-pieces, as well as the buckle, are carved of walrus-ivory.  The 78 chessmen comprise 8 Kings, 8 Queens, 16 Bishops, 15 Knights, 12 Rooks, and 19 Pawns, of which 2 Kings, 3 Queens, 3 Bishops, a Knight, and 2 Rooks are now at Edinburgh.  The Kings and Queens are carved seated, the Kings holding a half-drawn sword across the knees, the Queens usually resting the head on the right hand.  Seven of the Bishops (2 at Edinburgh) are also seated, the other 9 are standing.  All are represented with the crozier.  The Knights are on horseback with spear in the right ahnd and shield on the left arm.  The Rooks are armed warriors on foot, with  helmet, shield, and sword.  The Pawns are of various shapes and sizes, but most have octagonal bases.  Two of them bear some ornamentation.  A Queen of the same type as the Lewis Queens was found in County Meath, Ireland, in the first half of the 19th century.  It is now in a private museum in Dublin.(7)

The carving of the Rooks as warriors on foot undoubtedly points to Icelandic workmanship.  La Peyrere, Lettre a M. La Mothe (1664), Paris, [1663, 56, describing the Icelandic chessmen, says:

La difference qu'il y a de leu pieces aux notres, est, que nos Fous sont des Evesques parmy eux . . . Leu Rocs sont de petits Capitaines, que les escoliers Islandois que sont icy apelent Centurions.  Ils sont representez, l'espee au coste, les joues enfles, et sonnant du cor, qu'ils tiennent des deux mains.

[Don't ask me to translate!] 

Sir Frederick Madden, in his Historical Remarks (Archaeologia, 1852, xxiv; also separately printed, and in CPC., i), endeavoured to prove that these pieces are of Icelandic carving of the middle of the 12th century.  The latest authority, Mr. O.M. Dalton (Cat. Ivory Carvings . . . in the B. Mus., London, 1909), ascribes them to the 12th century, and thinks that they may be of British carving.  Wilson had already claimed a Scotch origin for them.  Both views depend upon the assumption that the chessmen are as old as the 13th century.

If there were any truth in the tradition which Capt. Thomas discovered to be current in Lewis, they may be the work of Icelandic carvers of the beginning of the 17th century only.(8)

The notes from Murray:

(7)  A rough woodcut of it was given in O'Donovan's Leabhar na g-Ceart, Dublin, 1847, lxii.  Other Norse chessmen are depicted in Fabricius, Danmarkshistorie, 1861, i. 494 (a seated Bishop), in  Worsaae, Nordiske Oldsager i det kongelige Museum i. Kjobenhawn, Kjobenhavn,  1854, 160 (a King, Bishop, and Pawn) and in Engelhardt, Guide illustri du Musee des Antiquities du Nord, Copenhague, 1870, 57 (a Knight); - v. d. Linde, ii. 312.

(8)  The tradition is to the effect that a shepherd employed by George Mor Mackenzie (who settled in Lewis, 1614-15) murdered a sailor, who had swum ashore from a wreck with the chessmen in a bag.  The shepherd buried the bag in the sand, and never prospered afterwards.  Capt. F. and W. L. Thomas, in Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotl., 1863, iv. 411.  In addition to the works already mentioned, information respecting the Lewis chessmen is also contained in Wilson, Prehis. Annals Scotl., ii 341; and Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scotl., 1889, xxiii. 9.
********************************************
This is some good stuff! A possible murder connected to the Lewis chess pieces?  Now that could be a capital haunting, indeed! 

Imagine this:  what if the story is true; or at the least, a mangled version of the story (regardless of its truth) is talked about for years around the islands, enough so that it has passed into general folklore after some years (we don't know when the shipwreck occurred or when the murder of the sailor took place).  Given this background, in addition to an enduring belief in hauntings and ghosts and, of course, the Wee Little People, the laborer's reaction might not seem so silly to our modern eyes if he knew that tale of a long-ago murder and the burying of the unfortunate sailor's bagful of goodies...

Woooooooo, sends chills down my spine, I have to say! 

*************************************************

I don't recall coming across in any of the accounts I've read about how the Lewis chess pieces ended up where they did the information contained in Murray's account.  Much more fascinating reading than bare-bones reports that the British Museum acquired 67 pieces and the National Museum of Scotland acquired the other 11 pieces!

Here's the line of "descent" of the pieces after they surfaced -- no indication, unfortunately, of whether they were held for a period of time after their discovery before being sold to Mr. Roderick Ririe, or when he may have acquired them, or what he paid for them.  It is quite possible, of course, that Ririe was not the original purchaser, but as he exhibited the pieces at the Antiquarian Society I am assuming that he must have been an avid antiquities collector and I assume he may have been the first buyer.  How he came to know about the pieces, however, now that is something not known either.  Arghhh! 

1.  Roderick Ririe exhibits the pieces to the Scottish Antiquarian Society on April 11, 1831.  They consist of 77 chess pieces, 14 "tablemen" (checkers? tablut pieces?) and an ivory belt buckle.

2.  Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe buys 10 chess pieces directly from Ririe.

3.  Ririe sells 67 pieces, 14 "tablemen" and one belt buckle to the British Museum. 

4.  Kirkpatrick Sharpe acquires another Lewis piece - but it is not described how, or how the piece was identified as belonging to the Lewis cache.  In any event, either Sharpe or someone on his behalf or on behalf of his Estate sells 11 Lewis pieces to Lord Londesborough.

5.  In 1888 the Society of Antiquaries acquires the 11 Sharpe pieces for the Scottish National Museum.

It appears at least some record of these transactions were kept -- else Murray couldn't have tracked down the information he provided in his History of Chess!  Didn't 'gentlemen' of the period nearly always write diaries and letters and what not? Was nothing from their records saved that can be dug around in today that might contain further information or clues?  Inventories?  Estate records?  Attorneys' records?  Bills of Sale?  We know that the pieces passed through the hands of at least three gentlemen:  (1) Ririe; (2) Sharpe; (3) Lord Londesborough. 

And what of Capt. Thomas?  Who was he, and why was he interested in the Lewis chess pieces?  How did he track down the old story about the shepherd murdering the sailor and burying the contents of the sailor's sack? What, exactly, were the contents of the sailor's sack?  It is assumed it was the Lewis chess pieces but - how do we really know...

And why would the local people have been willing to talk to him?  We've all read tales from all over the world about how notoriously closed-mouth villagers are when it comes to outsiders - whether a thousand years ago or today.  So how did the Captain sniff out the murder story? 

I do love a mystery, but I don't know if I have the time or resources to try and explore this any further.  Like the blogger who reported the original "haunted pieces" story (see above, from strangehistory.net) , I'm wondering if anyone out there has any information on this? 

Another Article on the Lewis Chess Pieces

From The Wall Street Journal:

NOVEMBER 24, 2011
Masterpiece: The Lewis Chessmen (12th Century)
Lively, Ivory Warriors

In the 2001 film "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," Harry and his pal Ron play a Christmastide game of "wizard chess" in the bedecked Great Hall of Hogwarts. To many film lovers the chess pieces' gnomelike appearance would seem another example of the film's masterly art direction. But connoisseurs of antique chess sets recognize the pieces as copies of what is arguably the most famous chess set of all, the 12th-century Lewis chessmen.

Eighty-two Lewis chessmen reside in the British Museum, which purchased them between 1831 and 1832 (an additional 11 pieces are owned by the National Gallery of Scotland). The tangled history of this doughty little army—selections from which are currently on exhibition at the Cloisters, the Metropolitan Museum of Art's medieval treasury in upper Manhattan—is worthy of a Wilkie Collins mystery.

According to the illustrated essay accompanying the exhibition, by the British Museum's curator of late medieval collections, James Robinson, they were part of a hoard of luxury goods unearthed in 1831 in a sandbank along Uig Bay, on the west coast of the windswept Isle of Lewis, largest of the Outer Hebrides west of Scotland. Suffice it to say that the Lewis chessmen eventually arrived at the British Museum via a chain of avarice, sharp dealings and, happily, dedicated scholarship.

Soon after the discovery, stylistic inspection revealed that the multiple kings, queens, bishops and other pieces in the hoard represented pieces from at least four distinct but incomplete sets. Stylistic similarities to contemporaneous church sculpture point specifically to the Norwegian city of Trondheim.

"These pieces represent the highest class of society," observes Mr. Robinson as we examine them together at the Cloisters. "And though they were by tradition thought to have been a merchant's hoard, they may well have been made for a Medieval Norwegian king and presented by him to one of his ambassadors as part of the wealth they were supposed to display, symbolic of their sovereign's power."

Chess, which originated in sixth-century India and came to Europe by way of Persia and the Islamic lands, was truly the game of kings. Sovereigns and their courtiers played chess not only for amusement, but to exercise their skill at military strategy in an age when might often made right.

Medieval European chessmen were fashioned from various precious materials, but virtually every one of the Lewis chessmen is a masterpiece ivory sculpture in miniature. Tough, though prone to splitting when worked or stored near heat, ivory has a satisfying heft when held, and can be polished to a buttery sheen. These animated little warriors were hand-carved using a variety of knives, saws, files and drills. Moreover the Lewis chessmen are distinctive because most are made of walrus ivory, a characteristic medium of maritime North Europe. Walrus tusks are much smaller than African elephant tusks, which dictates the size of objects carved from it. Walrus is also more yellow in color than elephant ivory, and because the smooth outer layer is also thinner than elephant ivory, carving often exposes the darker pulp beneath. Exposed pulp is often kept in less prominent places on the Lewis figures—under a carved fold of a costume, for instance—which shows how skillfully the anonymous craftsmen planned the carving of each piece.

That carving itself is distinctive, especially in its visual strength. As chess is an abstract battle, so the chessmen, especially the pawns, are carved as lively abstractions of human figures. Their overall shape is dictated by the tapering shape of a section of tusk, and their features, physiques and costumes are worked with marvelous detail within this limitation.

Certainly, the pieces bear distinct family resemblances within the different ranks, though their sizes vary, depending on the size of the original piece of tusk. Kings—some bearded, some not, all with long plaited hair under their crowns—sit on their elaborately carved thrones, swords in their laps. Their cloaks are meticulously detailed to show the right arm free to wield that sword. Queens, their veils falling from beneath their crowns, are carved to show their position as regal advisers. Though their right hands seem to be slapping their cheeks in consternation, the gesture was meant to signify thoughtful deliberation.

To carve a queen's fully rounded right arm required consummate skill to drill through the ivory, shape the limb and finally polish it in the round without fracturing it. Similar pierce-work distinguishes the bishops, each of whom holds a crozier, the hooked staff of episcopal office.

Kings, queens and bishops are all enthroned, and the exquisite scrollwork carved on the backs of each throne "recalls the marginalia of a manuscript" Mr. Robinson says. This intricate, sinuous visual language was an essential part of Northern European Medieval art, linking these chessmen to Romanesque and early Gothic stone carving and illuminations of the Book of Kells.

Warder.
The Trustees of the British Museum
The helmeted knights break most vigorously from the conical form, each, replete with shield, sword and suit of mail, seated astride a sturdy little pony. The warders or rooks are carved as bearded, helmeted foot soldiers (castle shapes came later) with shields and swords adding to their fierceness. But several of them, called "Berserkers," are particularly fierce, their bared teeth literally chomping on their shields in their lust for battle. This frenzy was called beserksgangr in Norse and gave us the word "berserk."

Finally the most abstract of all the chessmen, the little pawns, each worked from a tiny bullet-shaped tip of a tusk and carved only with a series of facets, or with incised flat sides, instead of human features.

Superficially, the bulging eyes of those chessmen with faces lend them a comically lunatic stare. But as you compare these pieces, each reveals nuances—facial features, gestures and postures—that the master ivory carvers achieved within the limitations imposed by the walrus tusk. For example, one of the warders is carved with his face and even his eyes turned slightly off to the side in apparent thought. It is this essential humanity of the unknown carver's hand that reaches across to us over the centuries. Viewed this way, we can understand Mr. Robinson's comment that "these Lewis Chessmen are my Elgin Marbles."

—Mr. Scherer writes about classical music and the fine arts for the Journal.

Wrap Up of News Coverage: 2011 Women's World Chess Championship Match

The New York Times:

17-Year-Old From China Repeats as Women’s Chess ChampBy DYLAN LOEB McCLAINPublished: November 24, 2011

In the growing rivalry between the emerging superpowers China and India, Beijing scored a symbolic victory on Thursday: a Chinese woman won a chess match.

The woman, Hou Yifan, 17, easily retained the Women’s World Chess Championship title when she drew the eighth game of a match against Humpy Koneru, the best Indian woman to play the game.
The final score of the best-of-10 match was 5.5 points to 2.5 points.

Despite the lopsided score, the victory was not as easy as it appeared, Ms. Hou said in a telephone interview from Tirana, Albania, where the match was held. “Every game was interesting. Both of us had chances,” she said. The difference was that “in the middle games, I caught her mistakes.”

Ms. Koneru said she was disappointed but not entirely surprised. “I’ve been struggling for the last year with my game,” she said by telephone, adding that her mistakes were caused by a lack of patience at critical points when she played too aggressively.

Rest of article.

From The Times of India:

Humpy lost it in the mind

Monday, November 28, 2011

3,300 Year Old Leather Chariot Trappings Rediscovered (!)

Unbelievable - the Cairo Museum doesn't even know what the hell it has in its own collections!

As reported at nature.com:
Ancient Egyptian chariot trappings rediscovered
Forgotten drawers in Egyptian museum yield 'astonishing' leather find.
Jo Marchant
 

More Celestial Connections Found at Stonehenge

From artdaily.com
November 29, 2011
Archaeological discovery provides evidence of a celestial procession at Stonehenge

BIRMINGHAM.- Archaeologists led by the University of Birmingham with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection have discovered evidence of two huge pits positioned on celestial alignment at Stonehenge. Shedding new light on the significant association of the monument with the sun, these pits may have contained tall stones, wooden posts or even fires to mark its rising and setting and could have defined a processional route used by agriculturalists to celebrate the passage of the sun across the sky at the summer solstice.

Positioned within the Cursus pathway, the pits are on alignment towards midsummer sunrise and sunset when viewed from the Heel Stone, the enigmatic stone standing just outside the entrance to Stonehenge. For the first time, this discovery may directly link the rituals and celestial phenomena at Stonehenge to activities within the Cursus.

The international archaeological survey team, led by the University of Birmingham’s IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre (VISTA), with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Archaeological Prospection and Virtual Archaeology in Vienna (LBI ArchPro) have also discovered a previously unknown gap in the middle of the northern side of the Cursus, which may have provided the main entrance and exit point for processions that took place within the pathway. Stretching from west to east, the Cursus is an immense linear enclosure, 100 metres wide and two and a half kilometres across, north of Stonehenge.

Professor Vince Gaffney, archaeologist and project leader from the IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre at the University of Birmingham, explains: “This is the first time we have seen anything quite like this at Stonehenge and it provides a more sophisticated insight into how rituals may have taken place within the Cursus and the wider landscape. These exciting finds indicate that even though Stonehenge was ultimately the most important monument in the landscape, it may at times not have been the only, or most important, ritual focus and the area of Stonehenge may have become significant as a sacred site at a much earlier date.

“Other activities were carried out at other ceremonial sites only a short distance away. The results from this new survey help us to appreciate just how complex these activities were and how intimate these societies were with the natural world. The perimeter of the Cursus may well have defined a route guiding ceremonial processions which took place on the longest day of the year.”

Archaeologists have understood for a long time that Stonehenge was designed to mark astronomical events, built by farming societies whose everyday concerns with growing crops linked their daily lives to the passage of the seasons and in particular the sun, on which their livelihoods depended. This new evidence raises exciting questions about how complex rituals within the Stonehenge landscape were conducted and how processions along or around the Cursus were organised at the time Stonehenge was in use.

Professor Gaffney adds: “It now seems likely that other ceremonial monuments in the surrounding landscape were directly articulated with rituals at Stonehenge. It is possible that processions within the Cursus moved from the eastern pit at sunrise, continuing eastwards along the Cursus and, following the path of the sun overhead, and perhaps back to the west, reaching the western pit at sunset to mark the longest day of the year. Observers of the ceremony would have been positioned at the Heel Stone, of which the two pits are aligned.”

Dr Henry Chapman, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology and Visualisation observes: “If you measure the walking distance between the two pits, the procession would reach exactly half-way at midday, when the sun would be directly on top of Stonehenge. This is more than just a coincidence, indicating that the exact length of the Cursus and the positioning of the pits are of significance.”

Stonehenge, while certainly the most important monument in the later Neolithic and Bronze Age landscape, was surrounded by a dense concentration of other sacred sites, some of which were already ancient when Stonehenge itself was built. The team has also revealed a new horseshoe arrangement of large pits north-east of Stonehenge which may have also contained posts and, together with the henge-like monument discovered last year and a number of other small monuments, may have functioned as minor shrines, perhaps serving specific communities visiting the ceremonial centre.

Paul Garwood, Lecturer in Prehistory at the University of Birmingham, comments: “Our knowledge of the ancient landscapes that once existed around Stonehenge is growing dramatically as we examine the new geophysical survey results. We can see in rich detail not only new monuments, but entire landscapes of past human activity, over thousands of years, preserved in sub-surface features such as pits and ditches. This project is establishing a completely new framework for studying the Stonehenge landscape.”

These new discoveries have come to light as part of the Stonehenge Hidden Landscape Project, which began in summer 2010 as the world’s biggest-ever virtual excavation using the latest geophysical imaging techniques to reveal and visually recreate the extraordinary prehistoric landscape surrounding Stonehenge.

Professor Wolfgang Neubauer, Director of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute, adds: “The LBI provides the best academics, technicians and young researchers in a team of 20 people and uses multiple systems designed for use on projects where the scale of work was previously unachievable. The use of non-invasive technologies provides information for virtual archaeologies that can be disseminated to the public via the web, iPad or mobile phone.”

Dr Christopher Gaffney, lecturer in Archaeological Geophysics at the University of Bradford, concludes:

“Building on our work from last year we have added even more techniques and instruments to study this remarkable landscape. It is clear that one technique is not adequate to study the complexity of the monuments and landscape surrounding our most important archaeological monument and the battery of techniques used here has significantly increased the certainty of our interpretation.”

2011 World Youth Chess Championships - Top Females

Girls U-18:ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk.NomeFEDEloIPts.Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
WIMArabidze MeriGEO23298.040.00.0986.101.901528.5
2
WGMKashlinskaya AlinaRUS23777.540.00.097.56.700.801512.0
3
WFMEnkhtuul AltanulziiMGL21836.536.50.096.54.631.871528.0
4
WIMPapp PetraHUN22656.536.00.096.55.810.691510.4
5
WIMAbdulla KhayalaAZE22166.533.00.096.55.740.761511.4
6
Kurbonboeva SarvinozUZB21356.531.50.096.55.461.041515.6
7
WIMKazimova NarminAZE22416.035.00.0965.620.38155.7
8
WFMBaciu DianaMDA22056.032.00.0965.930.0700.0
9
WFMChumpitaz AnnPER22036.031.50.0965.870.13152.0
10
WFMAdamowicz KatarzynaPOL20826.031.50.0853.441.561523.4

Girls U-16: ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk.NomeFEDEloIPts.Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
WIMZiaziulkina NastassiaBLR22727.540.00.097.56.331.171517.5
2
Klek Hanna-MarieGER21547.537.00.097.55.432.071531.0
3
WFMSalazar Aura CristinaCOL22377.536.00.097.56.281.221518.3
4
WFMRodriguez Rueda Paula AndreaCOL21457.040.00.0975.002.001530.0
5
Pratyusha BoddaIND20647.033.00.0975.471.531523.0
6
WFMIwanow AnnaPOL21696.533.50.096.55.960.54158.1
7
Severina MariaRUS21836.533.00.096.56.350.15152.3
8
Nandhidhaa PvIND21396.036.00.0965.240.761511.4
9
WFMOsmanodja FilizGER21276.033.00.0966.18-0.1815-2.7
10
WFMFataliyeva UlviyyaAZE21486.033.00.0966.49-0.4915-7.3

Girls U-14:  ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk.NomeFEDEloIPts.Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
WFMGoryachkina AleksandraRUS23139.045.00.0997.691.311519.6
2
WFMStyazhkina AnnaRUS20637.538.00.097.55.681.821527.3
3
WIMKhademalsharieh SarasadatIRI22157.039.00.0976.850.15152.3
4
WCMChiang SarahUSA20567.037.00.0975.361.641524.6
5
WCMDerakhshani DorsaIRI19666.532.00.096.56.240.26153.9
6
WFMFelix Vega Aurora EdithPER18506.531.00.085.53.502.001530.0
7
Rodionova DariaRUS19776.529.50.085.55.95-0.4515-6.8
8
WFMSrija SeshadriIND19266.035.00.0853.801.201518.0
9
WFMMahalakshmi MIND19556.031.00.0966.14-0.1415-2.1
10
Coelho Ramyres SantanaBRA18006.030.00.0853.002.001530.0

U-12 Girls: ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk.NomeFEDEloIPts.Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
WIMAbdumalik ZhansayaKAZ20918.043.00.0987.230.771511.6
2
WFMVasenina AnnaRUS20187.038.00.0865.400.60159.0
3
Tohirjonova GulruhbegimUZB18587.035.00.0975.521.481522.2
4
WCMDordzhieva DinaraRUS20287.035.00.0976.720.28154.2
5
Unuk LauraSLO17377.033.50.0862.783.221548.3
6
Oreshko MariyaUSA16946.535.00.0751.653.351550.3
7
Gueci TeaITA17546.534.50.085.53.052.451536.8
8
Bykovtsev AgataUSA06.529.00.096.5
9
WFMMammadzada GunayAZE18576.034.00.0854.660.34155.1
10
WCMHojjatova AydanAZE18996.033.50.0966.28-0.2815-4.2

Under-10 Girls: ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk.NomeFEDEloIPts.Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
WCMObolentseva AlexandraRUS18538.042.50.065.54.261.241518.6
2
Radeva ViktoriaBUL17557.035.00.0543.290.711510.6
3
Arda Cagil IrmakTUR15477.032.00.021.50.530.973029.1
4
Guo ShuoCHN06.536.50.074.5
5
Shuvalova PolinaRUS15226.535.50.063.51.531.973059.1
6
WFMCaballero Quijano Mitzy MishelPER17706.534.50.063.54.03-0.5315-7.9
7
Sliwicka AliciaPOL16946.532.50.030.52.00-1.5015-22.5
8
Bidhar RutumbaraIND16786.531.50.0110.710.29154.3
9
WCMSerikbay AsselKAZ06.033.00.085
10
WFMWang AnnieUSA06.031.00.063

Under-8 Girls: ClassificaĂ§Ă£o final apĂ³s 9 rondas
Rk. NomeFEDEloIPts. Des 1 Des 2 nwwew-weKrtg+/-
1
Assaubayeva BibissaraKAZ08.039.00.032
2
WCMTran Vuong Mai KhanhVIE17857.041.50.0100.91-0.9130-27.3
3
Salonika SainaIND13806.534.00.021.50.580.921513.8
4
Lakshmi CIND14106.533.00.0110.090.911513.6
5
Zhang TaylorCAN06.529.00.011
6
Solozhenkina ElizavetaRUS06.035.50.042.5
7
Bai XueCHN06.033.00.021.5
8
Ismayilzada ZeynabAZE06.032.50.052.5
9
Motahahere AsadiIRI06.031.00.020.5
10
Ramesh KaavyaUSA13956.031.00.0100.52-0.5230-15.6

2011 World Youth Chess Championships - Team USA

An overview of Team USA's performance - top 10 finishes are highlighted:

Vista geral de jogador de USA

USA
Nº.Inic.NomeEloIFED123456789Pts.Rk.Krtg+/-Grupo
5Ramesh Kaavya1395USA1110010116.01030-15.60U 8 Girls
13Bashkansky Naomi0USA0110101116.013300.00U 8 Girls
55Zhao Chenyi0USA0111010116.011300.00U 8 Girls
2Peng David T1945USA11½1011016.5730-18.00U 8 Open
3Liang Awonder1872USA1111111½07.51152.25U 8 Open
8Gu Brian F1636USA1011101016.012300.00U 8 Open
22Baradaran Arman0USA0010110104.058300.00U 8 Open
40Joo Ethan S0USA1011010105.029300.00U 8 Open
45Krishnan Ajay0USA01½½½½01½4.545300.00U 8 Open
55Metpally Jason0USA11½0110004.538300.00U 8 Open
62Nguyen Dang Minh0USA1½0½001014.054300.00U 8 Open
71Rood Ben0USA111001½105.52000.00U 8 Open
76Stearman Josiah0USA0101101105.03300.00U 8 Open
80Turgut Aydin0USA1100110015.03000.00U 8 Open
26WFMWang Annie0USA1100111106.010300.00U 10 Girls
33Davis Katherine0USA0½1011½1½5.518300.00U 10 Girls
34Devagharan Devina0USA1½½10101½5.516300.00U 10 Girls
49Nguyen Emily0USA0101½10115.519300.00U 10 Girls
59Qureshi Sadia0USA0001110104.04600.00U 10 Girls
2Lu Albert2043USA0½11110116.51215-5.40U 10 Open
9Li Ruifeng1919USA1111101½½7.021526.70U 10 Open
40Szabo Marcell1649USA1011011½05.5253029.70U 10 Open
48FMVasudeva Tanuj0USA100½111½16.023300.00U 10 Open
56Burke John M0USA0½1111½106.021300.00U 10 Open
59Checa Nicolas D0USA100110½104.557300.00U 10 Open
77Knoff Thomas0USA1001½01115.533300.00U 10 Open
81Liu Bovey0USA01½0111105.53200.00U 10 Open
88Nydick Brandon0USA1½1100½004.066300.00U 10 Open
111Wang Michael0USA1110010½15.526300.00U 10 Open
113Xie Tianming0USA101½1111½7.0800.00U 10 Open
6WFMDing Kimberly1976USA1½01101105.51930-61.50U 12 Girls
15WFMLiao Simone1810USA1101101106.0111512.60U 12 Girls
36Oreshko Mariya1694USA½11½1110½6.561550.25U 12 Girls
64Bykovtsev Agata0USA10101½1116.58300.00U 12 Girls
69Feng Maggie0USA½0110½1015.03300.00U 12 Girls
10FMXiong Jeffrey2056USA11½½1½11½7.051518.60U 12 Open
14Viswanadha Kesav2020USA1010½10115.53815-27.90U 12 Open
16Wheeler Cameron2002USA½1101011½6.01915-9.60U 12 Open
17Pillai Kadhir A2001USA101011½004.55415-37.95U 12 Open
27Chiang Jonathan1951USA11½01½0105.04215-6.30U 12 Open
32Tang Andrew1921USA101100½104.55730-46.50U 12 Open
33Beilin Allan1917USA101½110105.529157.80U 12 Open
44FMHe Tommy O1844USA1½10011105.5311528.05U 12 Open
101Chen Michael0USA110½110105.52700.00U 12 Open
5Gologorsky Rachel2057USA01101011½5.52330-62.70U 14 Girls
6WCMChiang Sarah2056USA1110111017.041524.60U 14 Girls
34Virkud Apurva1804USA1½01110004.539156.60U 14 Girls
86Poteat Lilia M0USA1010½10104.542300.00U 14 Girls
17Bodek Michael H2236USA1½1½½½1016.01815-3.75U 14 Open
21Brown Michael William2193USA½111½00½15.52815-10.20U 14 Open
23Wang Kevin2187USA1010½11116.51515-1.80U 14 Open
24Williams Justus D2186USA1½1011½0½5.52515-0.90U 14 Open
27Ding Jialin2179USA1110½0½004.08015-20.25U 14 Open
34Black James A2132USA11010½1004.55615-23.55U 14 Open
35Pamatmat Jarod M2132USA1011½01105.5301513.05U 14 Open
39Krishnan Varun2108USA1½01011116.5141526.55U 14 Open
44Colas Joshua2047USA1010110004.08115-16.05U 14 Open
45Regam Jessica1818USA½0½1010115.0331519.20U 16 Girls
70Ballantyne Rochelle0USA0111001½04.537300.00U 16 Girls
51Hughes John L.2085USA10011010½4.55415-15.75U 16 Open
38Tallo Emily1954USA0111½0½105.0223046.20U 18 Girls
40Robinson Darrian1947USA0000000000.068150.00U 18 Girls
27FMRosen Eric S2305USA1½½111½0½6.091527.30U 18 Open
37Vilenchuk Michael2219USA1010011015.03615-10.35U 18 Open