World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

The very latest International round up of English news.
Ian Thompson
Posts: 2718
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Ian Thompson » Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:53 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:05 pm
I've watched vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPysTEW0YZU
Should the arbiter have intervened a few move earlier when Firouzja knocked his e3 pawn off its square so it was pretty well centred on the intersection of the d3, e3, d4 and e4 squares. He had 4 seconds left when he stopped his clock without replacing the piece on its square.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Nick Burrows » Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:29 pm

If the rules say that position is a win for Carlsen - the rules are not fit for purpose annd need changing. Ridiculous.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Richard Bates » Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:40 pm

Nick Burrows wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:29 pm
If the rules say that position is a win for Carlsen - the rules are not fit for purpose annd need changing. Ridiculous.
I don’t really see why. As Nick F pointed out white has an increment. There is no reason for him to lose on time, and as a result it is perfectly reasonable IMO for the rules to set a very high (low?) bar for anything other than a 0-1 outcome in these circumstances. Basically akin to the difference between a loss on time in classical chess due to failure to meet a time control, and loss on time in a quick play finish.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Nick Burrows » Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:46 pm

Thats not a high bar, its the worlds tallest building.

How is it possible that Carlsen wins the position?

It wouldnt happen in 100 million games from that position. Therefore its bringing the game into disrepute to award it so.

NickFaulks
Posts: 6283
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by NickFaulks » Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:52 pm

Nick Burrows wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:29 pm
If the rules say that position is a win for Carlsen - the rules are not fit for purpose annd need changing.
Do you have an alternative wording in mind? The reason the rule is as drafted is that other possibilities had been found wanting.

Regarding my previous point that there should not be a problem with a two second increment, of course that doesn't work when pieces are knocked over.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 4306
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:05 am

"Should the arbiter have intervened a few move earlier when Firouzja knocked his e3 pawn off its square so it was pretty well centred on the intersection of the d3, e3, d4 and e4 squares."

Yes, although Carlsen didn't seem bothered. Firouzja was pretty good at picking up other pieces he displaced at other times.

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 3646
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:10 am

Nick Burrows wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:46 pm
Thats not a high bar, its the worlds tallest building.

How is it possible that Carlsen wins the position?

It wouldnt happen in 100 million games from that position. Therefore its bringing the game into disrepute to award it so.
Doesn't matter, if a win is *theoretically* possible from a sequence of legal moves - then it is deemed a win.

This has long been the case and tbh I am surprised that people are not aware of it.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Nick Burrows » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:18 am

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:10 am
Doesn't matter, if a win is *theoretically* possible from a sequence of legal moves - then it is deemed a win.

This has long been the case and tbh I am surprised that people are not aware of it.
How long a rule has been in place speaks nothing of its usefulness.

Who cares about theoretical possibilities in a real world situation. You can theoretically win positions in more than 50 moves, but a rule is in place because proving the theory is an exercise in tedium.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Nick Burrows » Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:24 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:52 pm
Do you have an alternative wording in mind? The reason the rule is as drafted is that other possibilities had been found wanting.
How about:
If one side does not have mating material, even if it is possible for his opponent to cocoon his king in knights so as to form a corridor for the opponents lone bishop to theoretically mate him - it is still a draw.
:lol:

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:26 am

Kevin Thurlow wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:05 am
"Should the arbiter have intervened a few move earlier when Firouzja knocked his e3 pawn off its square so it was pretty well centred on the intersection of the d3, e3, d4 and e4 squares."

Yes, although Carlsen didn't seem bothered. Firouzja was pretty good at picking up other pieces he displaced at other times.
During the time I was in the playing area, when I was involved in hunting down sections where games had finished so I could take the results and enter them, I saw pieces being knocked down repeatedly in the blitz towards the end of the games. The players always knew where the pieces were, and almost all of them (see below) simply didn't care, and got on with the game. It would probably have been more distracting to the victim for the arbiter to dive in than it would have been to just let the players get on with it.

There was one example in the Rapid of Nakamura - why is it always him? - knocking a Rook over with his hand when it was on its way back from pressing the clock and standing it up almost immediately. After about 5-10 seconds of thinking about it, Zhigalko called Takis over to complain about this, while his clock was still running. Both players had within a few minutes of their 15 minutes start time. The video of this is on Twitter/YouTube and so on, but I can't immediately find it using the airport wifi! Nakamura was given a warning, and Zhigalko lost about a minute on his clock having failed to stop it while talking to Takis, which seemed to me to be a fair outcome in the circumstances.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:49 am

Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:10 am
This has long been the case and tbh I am surprised that people are not aware of it.

There was an example in the recent past in the Women's World Championship where a win was awarded in King and Knight v King and Knight.

http://rules.chessdom.com/appeals-commi ... cko-foisor

Richard Bates
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:36 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 7:49 am
Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:10 am
This has long been the case and tbh I am surprised that people are not aware of it.

There was an example in the recent past in the Women's World Championship where a win was awarded in King and Knight v King and Knight.

http://rules.chessdom.com/appeals-commi ... cko-foisor
That was an Armageddon game though with no increment. The problems are when people with no chance of winning play on to win on the clock regardless (even if totally lost and opponent wants a draw). Not something that will happen with an increment in general. If somebody, with an increment, chooses to risk defeat on the clock by seeking victory on the board then I don’t see why the opponent then winning on time is bringing the game into disrepute. Any more than if the same thing happened when a player loses on time with an overwhelming material advantage. And you couldn’t write a law for that.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19345
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:42 am

Richard Bates wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:36 am
Any more than if the same thing happened when a player loses on time with an overwhelming material advantage. And you couldn’t write a law for that.
There's 10.2/ Appendix G etc which enables the player with little time but an overwhelming material advantage to claim a draw. But that only applies without increments. Maybe two seconds as increment is little too fast.

Richard Bates
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:12 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:42 am
Richard Bates wrote:
Tue Dec 31, 2019 8:36 am
Any more than if the same thing happened when a player loses on time with an overwhelming material advantage. And you couldn’t write a law for that.
There's 10.2/ Appendix G etc which enables the player with little time but an overwhelming material advantage to claim a draw. But that only applies without increments. Maybe two seconds as increment is little too fast.
What i meant was - you couldn't write a law that says that a player cannot win on time with an overwhelming material disadvantage, when their opponent is choosing to risk defeat by playing on for a win on the board. The initial debate having arisen because Carlsen was "gifted" a win when Firoujza wasn't prepared to accept a draw, and some people thinking that was wrong because he didn't have mating material (without significant levels of co-operation). And i don't see that there is any need for such a law on "disrepute" grounds when you are playing with a increment. Everyone knows and accepts that clock handling is a major part of blitz chess, by design, and far more so than in slower forms of the game.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 4306
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: World Rapid and Blitz Championships 2019

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:34 am

"The players always knew where the pieces were, and almost all of them (see below) simply didn't care, and got on with the game. It would probably have been more distracting to the victim for the arbiter to dive in than it would have been to just let the players get on with it."

Yes - I agree. The second sentence is very important. It would have been easy for Carlsen to pause the clock or make some sort of gesture of annoyance if it bothered him.

Post Reply