English Chess Forum

Silvio Danailov (President of the ECU) about changes in the ECU:

Interview with the Russian newspaper Sport-Express
http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-georgia

"Another interesting question was about the changes that Danailov will try to pursue as the President of the ECU: "We have to change a few things. First we have to introduce the Sofia rule into all official competitions. And in the case of intentional triple repetition in a position where you can still fight, the arbiter should have the right to 'award' both players with 'zero'."

"Second, we have to introduce the football scoring system, which is being used with great effect in Bilbao and London. And finally, we must reduce the time control, the game should last no more than four hours. All kinds of increments should be canceled because they rob the fans off of a spectacular show in the time trouble."

I agree with the first paragraph, not sure about the second one though

Silvio Danailov wrote:All kinds of increments should be canceled because they rob the fans off of a spectacular show in the time trouble."

If you remove increments, you should allow draws to be agreed when players are short of time.

At most levels of chess, there are no fans, just the players.

LozCooper wrote:Silvio Danailov (President of the ECU) about changes in the ECU:

Interview with the Russian newspaper Sport-Express
http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-georgia

"Another interesting question was about the changes that Danailov will try to pursue as the President of the ECU: "We have to change a few things. First we have to introduce the Sofia rule into all official competitions. And in the case of intentional triple repetition in a position where you can still fight, the arbiter should have the right to 'award' both players with 'zero'."

"Second, we have to introduce the football scoring system, which is being used with great effect in Bilbao and London. And finally, we must reduce the time control, the game should last no more than four hours. All kinds of increments should be canceled because they rob the fans off of a spectacular show in the time trouble."

I agree with the first paragraph, not sure about the second one though

I disagree with all of it. Sofia rules have their place in top class invitation events such as the London Chess Classic, but in official championships different considerations apply. What happens, for instance, when a player only needs a draw to close out a match? Speelman v Short, 5th Match Game 1988, is a classic example of the approach to adopt - I watched it live and was enthralled.

As to Danailov's second paragraph, I thought we'd seen off Ilyumzhinov's idea that all moves in 90m plus 30s increment was a suitable time limit for a major competition. Now Danailov wants something like all moves in 120m instead.

About four years ago David Anderton said to me that, by maintaining seven hour sessions for events like the British Championship and the 4NCL, England was playing an important role in ensuring that classical chess was preserved. We've won a battle but not the war, and I hope that we'll continue to fight.

I assume that the ECF delegate to the ECU will be representing views at the meetings during the consultation phase?

Who is the current ECU delegate?

John Upham wrote:I assume that the ECF delegate to the ECU will be representing views at the meetings during the consultation phase?

Who is the current ECU delegate?

Isn't the post combined with the FIDE one? So it's Nigel.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

John Upham wrote:I assume that the ECF delegate to the ECU will be representing views at the meetings during the consultation phase?

Who is the current ECU delegate?

Isn't the post combined with the FIDE one? So it's Nigel.

That's correct - perhaps the ECF should consider changing the title of the position to "FIDE and ECU Delegate".

The 2011 ECU General Assembly will take place during the European Team Championships, which are being held in Heraklion, Greece, from 2nd - 12th November 2011.

Nigel has pointed out at http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php ... 0&start=60 that that wouldn't be a suitable time for him to do a second tour.

David Sedgwick wrote:

LozCooper wrote:Silvio Danailov (President of the ECU) about changes in the ECU:

Interview with the Russian newspaper Sport-Express
http://interviews.chessdom.com/silvio-danailov-georgia

"Another interesting question was about the changes that Danailov will try to pursue as the President of the ECU: "We have to change a few things. First we have to introduce the Sofia rule into all official competitions. And in the case of intentional triple repetition in a position where you can still fight, the arbiter should have the right to 'award' both players with 'zero'."

"Second, we have to introduce the football scoring system, which is being used with great effect in Bilbao and London. And finally, we must reduce the time control, the game should last no more than four hours. All kinds of increments should be canceled because they rob the fans off of a spectacular show in the time trouble."

I agree with the first paragraph, not sure about the second one though

I disagree with all of it. Sofia rules have their place in top class invitation events such as the London Chess Classic, but in official championships different considerations apply. What happens, for instance, when a player only needs a draw to close out a match? Speelman v Short, 5th Match Game 1988, is a classic example of the approach to adopt - I watched it live and was enthralled.

As to Danailov's second paragraph, I thought we'd seen off Ilyumzhinov's idea that all moves in 90m plus 30s increment was a suitable time limit for a major competition. Now Danailov wants something like all moves in 120m instead.

About four years ago David Anderton said to me that, by maintaining seven hour sessions for events like the British Championship and the 4NCL, England was playing an important role in ensuring that classical chess was preserved. We've won a battle but not the war, and I hope that we'll continue to fight.

Actually when I said agree I should have said I could live with it depending on what is classified as an official event. If Sofia rules are in force then repetition is a big loophole which needs addressing. I'm not refering to a forced repetition where one side is losing if they deviate but lines like 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dc 5 a4 Bf5 6 Nh4 Bc8 7 Nf3 Bf5 etc

Whilst I enjoy playing all moves in two hours or quicker when I play in Irish weekenders I wouldn't like to see it in the olympiad or world championship etc If we want the excitment of time scrambles and blitz finishes then we can watch blitz and rapid that are still sometimes played without increment.

The 0-0 for the third repetition is unlikely to affect many games as most will have agreed a draw after the second repetition and the third time the position occurred.

LozCooper wrote: Actually when I said agree I should have said I could live with it depending on what is classified as an official event. If Sofia rules are in force then repetition is a big loophole which needs addressing. I'm not refering to a forced repetition where one side is losing if they deviate but lines like 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dc 5 a4 Bf5 6 Nh4 Bc8 7 Nf3 Bf5 etc

I don't agree with this. I maybe can acknowledge it is a problem with "Sofia rules", but i don't see that there is a solution (other than through the organisers using their power of invitation to discourage the practice). It isn't something that could be written into the rules (even if desirable), short of going down the Draughts route of mandating/outlawing certain opening moves - which would obviously be ridiculous with chess, so regularly do opening assessments change.

Take the example given - do you ban the white player from playing 6. Nh4? Obviously not, because he may not be intending to answer 6...Bc8 with 7. Nf3. Do you ban the move 6...Bc8? Clearly not, it might be the best move! Going down that route you end up effectively banning perfectly sound openings because the best moves aren't available to be played. So any rules have to be player specific (ie they can't be 0-0), and possibly colour dependent. You somehow have to ban 7. Nf3, or perhaps 8. Nh4 But that's pretty unworkable as well. It wouldn't take too long for example before something like 1. d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c3 Nf6 4. g3 Nc6 5. dc a5 6. Bf4 Nh5 7.Bc1 etc gets played.

And anyway where do you draw the line? At least one/two players having an early repetition are being honest. What do you do about 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 for example? Or the hundreds of other lines (currently) known by theory to be pretty much guaranteed draws?

At the end of the day people IMO have to realise that the draw, and issues surrounding it are a fundamental part of chess (both individual games, and in the tournament context), and indeed a massive psychological factor which would be lost if there were serious attempts to crack down in the rules. It is this which IMO should exclude any use of Sofia rules in "official" tournaments. It should be left to what are effectively "exhibition" events like the London Classic, which are designed around increasing enjoyment for the spectators, rather than particularly around the players. Even here it is only really necessary because of the limited number of games being played (and i think they made an effective exception when Kramnik was ill vs Anand!). I can't see why Wijk an Zee, for example would ever need such gimmicks.

Incidentally, I wonder if Danailov would be so keen on "Sofia" rules, if they originated in Moscow?

One final snippet - Kasparov in his book of his matches against Karpov briefly touches on this issue - in one of his matches he needed a draw to be World Champion/retain his title. Karpov played the Zaitsev which is known to allow a forced repetition. Kasparov made a throwaway comment that he wouldn't consider the repetition in a game of this consequence.

Sometimes the people obsessing about writing rules to cover every consequence should just trust the vast majority of players to do the right thing.

Richard Bates wrote: I think they made an effective exception when Kramnik was ill vs Anand!

If we did, I wasn't aware of it. The draw was agreed and allowed at the same point as it would have been in "normal" circumstances.

Whether Anand knew or realised that Kramnik was ill, I'm genuinely not sure.

David Sedgwick wrote:

Richard Bates wrote: I think they made an effective exception when Kramnik was ill vs Anand!).

If we did, I wasn't aware of it. The draw was agreed and allowed at the same point as it would have been in "normal" circumstances.

Whether Anand knew or realised that Kramnik was ill, I'm genuinely not sure.

Yes, you're obviously right, sorry. I had some memory of Kramnik apologising for playing so insipidly and saying it was due to his illness - but since (looking at the game) he just played his usual Berlin you couldn't really tell the difference. Maybe there was some suggestion he could have played on, but opted to swap into a dead drawn ending? Which if so, does show in a way how Sofia rules can always be circumvented.

Richard Bates wrote:

LozCooper wrote: Actually when I said agree I should have said I could live with it depending on what is classified as an official event. If Sofia rules are in force then repetition is a big loophole which needs addressing. I'm not refering to a forced repetition where one side is losing if they deviate but lines like 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 dc 5 a4 Bf5 6 Nh4 Bc8 7 Nf3 Bf5 etc

I don't agree with this. I maybe can acknowledge it is a problem with "Sofia rules", but i don't see that there is a solution (other than through the organisers using their power of invitation to discourage the practice). It isn't something that could be written into the rules (even if desirable), short of going down the Draughts route of mandating/outlawing certain opening moves - which would obviously be ridiculous with chess, so regularly do opening assessments change.

Take the example given - do you ban the white player from playing 6. Nh4? Obviously not, because he may not be intending to answer 6...Bc8 with 7. Nf3. Do you ban the move 6...Bc8? Clearly not, it might be the best move! Going down that route you end up effectively banning perfectly sound openings because the best moves aren't available to be played. So any rules have to be player specific (ie they can't be 0-0), and possibly colour dependent. You somehow have to ban 7. Nf3, or perhaps 8. Nh4 But that's pretty unworkable as well. It wouldn't take too long for example before something like 1. d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c3 Nf6 4. g3 Nc6 5. dc a5 6. Bf4 Nh5 7.Bc1 etc gets played.

And anyway where do you draw the line? At least one/two players having an early repetition are being honest. What do you do about 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 for example? Or the hundreds of other lines (currently) known by theory to be pretty much guaranteed draws?

At the end of the day people IMO have to realise that the draw, and issues surrounding it are a fundamental part of chess (both individual games, and in the tournament context), and indeed a massive psychological factor which would be lost if there were serious attempts to crack down in the rules. It is this which IMO should exclude any use of Sofia rules in "official" tournaments. It should be left to what are effectively "exhibition" events like the London Classic, which are designed around increasing enjoyment for the spectators, rather than particularly around the players. Even here it is only really necessary because of the limited number of games being played (and i think they made an effective exception when Kramnik was ill vs Anand!). I can't see why Wijk an Zee, for example would ever need such gimmicks.

Incidentally, I wonder if Danailov would be so keen on "Sofia" rules, if they originated in Moscow?

One final snippet - Kasparov in his book of his matches against Karpov briefly touches on this issue - in one of his matches he needed a draw to be World Champion/retain his title. Karpov played the Zaitsev which is known to allow a forced repetition. Kasparov made a throwaway comment that he wouldn't consider the repetition in a game of this consequence.

Sometimes the people obsessing about writing rules to cover every consequence should just trust the vast majority of players to do the right thing.

The nearest we had to testing the water in this area is Howell-Kramnik in 2009 where Kramnik offered a repetition but David instantly played a different move. At the time I was interested to see what would happen if neither avoided it. I think it would only become an issue if you had a round where it happened in more than one game and the likely impact is a disgruntled sponsor and different players being invited the following year. As you say, it is more of an issue when you have a small number of games on the stage than in a big event.

No draw offers - good idea for invitational tournaments which are primarily intended for the spectators, bad idea for the majority of tournaments which are primarily intended for the players.

No early repetitions - tricky one. It is a potential loophole in the Sofia rules, but I'm not sure Danailov's proposition is the best way to close it (if such a way exists). I agree with Richard here - you can't start dictating to players which moves they are or aren't allowed to make.

Football scoring system - bad idea IMO, although I can see why some people might support it. The problem all these measures are aimed at addressing is not (or should not be) the fact that many games are drawn - it's the fact that some games are drawn very quickly. The top players are sufficiently evenly matched that a lot of the games between them will be drawn - I can't see a problem with this provided that the draw occurs after both players have done their best to try to win, rather than deciding that the draw was inevitable and they might as well go home early. A well-fought draw can be more interesting than a win which occurs because of one player's blunder rather than any particularly good play by his opponent, and I don't think that should be penalised by counting such a draw as worth less than half a win. As far as I can see the football scoring only serves to reward erratic play (Carlsen's four wins and two losses) over consistency (Anand and McShane's two wins and no losses).

Reduced time control - unbelievably stupid idea. Although there are slight variations in the exact time control for each, top level chess basically has three categories: classical, rapid and blitz (amateur level has the intermediate "league/congress" category, due to the need to fit one game into an evening or two or three into a day). Rapid and blitz are the ones which are supposed to produce "spectacular shows in time trouble"; the point of classical chess is not to provide a spectacular show, but to provide the highest quality chess by giving players as much thinking time as they could reasonably need - Danailov apparently wants to deprive both players and spectators of that opportunity.

Richard Bates wrote:Incidentally, I wonder if Danailov would be so keen on "Sofia" rules, if they originated in Moscow?

Perhaps he should introduce the "Elista rules" - if things are going badly for you, come up with some outlandish accusation in an attempt to distract your opponent from the match.