World Cup Baku 10 September to 4 October 2015

[Mick Norris]

''Of course, child'' retorted the Red Queen. ''No tournament is too insignificant to be ignored''.

I realise that I'm flogging a dead horse, but honestly there's f**k all point spending any money at all on getting chess recognised as a sport or complaining about lack of sponsorship and so on if all that's being reported by our governing body is us telling each other to f**k off, or failing that, the full text of emails concerning possible insurance savings, when there's nothing on one of our finest ever players involved in the latter stages of the most exciting tournament of the year :S

Simon

The ECF continues to have a vacancy for a publicity officer, I think it has been vacant since Ben Edgell did it

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

I imagine that if a suitable article was sent to the webmaster, he would put it on the website

Notwithstanding that, you are correct, and maybe the Commercial Director would be better concentrating on this rather than attacking Alex

[JustinHorton]

If you look here

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/7752/369/

and download the list of changes to the USCF rules between 2003 and 2014, you will see (page 4) that unless I mistake myself, castling is explicitly with one hand only.

The Blitz Rules were revised to reflect the implementation of the Blitz Rating System as well
as some additional TD TIPs.

Rule 4 has new wording regarding the use of the same hand to move the piece and
press the clock. No exceptions (one hand only is to be used when castling, capturing or
promoting, and that same hand must press the clock.

[LawrenceCooper]

I realise that I'm flogging a dead horse, but honestly there's f**k all point spending any money at all on getting chess recognised as a sport or complaining about lack of sponsorship and so on if all that's being reported by our governing body is us telling each other to f**k off, or failing that, the full text of emails concerning possible insurance savings, when there's nothing on one of our finest ever players involved in the latter stages of the most exciting tournament of the year :S

I can remember the days when international chess was reported on a weekly basis on the website with notable performances given their own article. Even now, if any of us sent in a report it would probably make an appearance on the homepage.

[JustinHorton]

I don't really understand David's answer to Simon above. I appreciate that there's such a thing as non-binding guidance, but I don't as yet see what, in the rules or the guidance, was stopping the arbiters from intervening.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I don't really understand David's answer to Simon above. I appreciate that there's such a thing as non-binding guidance, but I don't as yet see what, in the rules or the guidance, was stopping the arbiters from intervening.

In fact the guidance seems to emphasize that indeed the arbiters should have intervened, while the Laws of Chess are not quite so clear, however until 2014 it was explicit in Blitz/Armageddon that the arbiter should not intervene, only if summoned by one of the players. That is of course a paradigm shift compared to how it is supposed to work now, with the arbiter(s) having to enforce all laws as if it had been standard games (full-length).

I don't know how the arbiters of this event had expected they were to rule, because it seems difficult to believe 4 experienced arbiters can overlook 3 violations of the Laws of Chess, unless they had the idea they were to keep silent unless a player claimed a violation of a rule. That would be possible if they thought the 2014 laws were in fact not yet in vigor for this tournament. So there are 3 possibilities 1. They didn't see any violations 2. They did see the violations but thought they were not allowed to interrupt the game 3. They did see the violations but thought it was in the best interest of Nepo not to interrupt the game.

About (3) I would say it would be better for Nepo to be interrupted, but given say 1 minute more on the clock, than to let the game continue as it did, with 3 violations and no arbiter intervention.

I am aware that Nepo could have taken the case in his own hands by complaining at each of the 3 violations, but I can understand he thought the 4 arbiters were there to handle that, so he could concentrate on his game. Sometimes justice does not come by itself, you have to fight for it. It does appear to me some form of form of arbitrarial incompetence was manifest in this particular game, with these particular arbiters. IMHO of course.

[Simon Ansell]

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking the webmaster who shouldn't be responsible. Ideally there'd be a Web Content Manager/Editor, but in the absence of a Publicity Officer, it should probably be up to the International Director to supply reports for (high-profile) international events, even if they're only a few words. But the Commercial Director should be responsible for overall web/media strategy.

Thanks David for your comments, appreciated.

[Mick Norris]

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking the webmaster who shouldn't be responsible. Ideally there'd be a Web Content Manager/Editor, but in the absence of a Publicity Officer, it should probably be up to the International Director to supply reports for (high-profile) international events, even if they're only a few words. But the Commercial Director should be responsible for overall web/media strategy.

Simon, I didn't think you were attacking the webmaster

Would you think Malcolm Pein would do a better job in this respect as International Director?

[LawrenceCooper]

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking the webmaster who shouldn't be responsible. Ideally there'd be a Web Content Manager/Editor, but in the absence of a Publicity Officer, it should probably be up to the International Director to supply reports for (high-profile) international events, even if they're only a few words. But the Commercial Director should be responsible for overall web/media strategy.

I know that David O was looking for someone to take on the reporting when he took over but I don't think this was ever advertised. It was probably easier for me in the sense that I follow all the events anyway. In that respect Malcolm writes a daily newspaper column so is very well informed about the latest goings on in international chess and already has access to all the top players and an insider perspective on some of the top events.

[Simon Ansell]

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

Just to be clear, I wasn't attacking the webmaster who shouldn't be responsible. Ideally there'd be a Web Content Manager/Editor, but in the absence of a Publicity Officer, it should probably be up to the International Director to supply reports for (high-profile) international events, even if they're only a few words. But the Commercial Director should be responsible for overall web/media strategy.

Simon, I didn't think you were attacking the webmaster

Would you think Malcolm Pein would do a better job in this respect as International Director?

Yes, but then it's hard to do worse than providing no reports at all.

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.

[Brian Towers]

This was in fact not the only violation of rules that Nakamura committed in this Armageddon game. The castling with both hands takes place at 0:43 in the video, but at 0:47 he in fact pushes his king slightly forward without saying "j'adoube" or "I adjust", and subsequently makes another move than a king move. While I agree that this violation is perhaps not enough to demand that he must move the king (Kh8) it certainly is a violation of rule 4.2 since his intention was not declared before adjusting the king. It does show the problem about castling with both hands, often the two pieces will not land correctly on their squares.

I have seen Naka in another tiebreak game adjusting a rook that his opponent had just placed slightly uncentered on the square, also without using "I adjust" as specified in rule 4.2. In this case instead of "correcting" the problem himself, he could have claimed 7.4 misplacing of pieces. Luckily for Naka he could not capture the rook (for instance with a queen) as this would have been the result if he had touched it as he did and the capture would have been possible.

Your interpretation and conclusions are wrong, Jesper. You have overlooked 4.3 -

4.3  Except as provided  in Article 4.2,  if  the player having  the move  touches on  the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: 
a.  one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that 
can be moved, or 
b.  one  or  more  of  his  opponent’s  pieces,  he  must  capture  the  first  piece 
touched that can be captured, or 
c.  one piece of each colour, he must capture  the opponent’s piece with his 
piece or,  if  this  is  illegal, move or capture  the  first piece  touched which can be 
moved  or  captured.  If  it  is  unclear  whether  the  player’s  own  piece  or  his 
opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have 
been touched before his opponent’s. 

If there is no intention then there is no obligation.
Note that this is not just my interpretation. Geurt Gijssen came to this conclusion in his "Arbiter's Notebook" column in 2011 - https://web.archive.org/web/20120510222 ... urt160.pdf .

Do any of the more senior arbiters have an alternative view / reinterpretation of Gijssen's comments?

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.

Giri-Wojtaszek also drawn, albeit they got past move 30.

[Brian Towers]

Nepom just tweeted, quoting article 4 "If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4 he must always intervene immediately".

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

There were apparently four (!) arbiters watching the game, and I'm inclined to agree with Nigel.

I hadn't seen your post when I made my earlier comments.

I'm inclined to disagree with Nigel, for the reason which I mentioned. So, it would appear, did the four watching arbiters.

The sentence which you and Nepomniachtchi quote is not part of the Laws. It is guidance, admittedly official, contained in the FIDE Arbiters' Manual.

David, how do you square your view with article 12.1?

12.1  The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.

Two handed moves are against the Laws of Chess and constitute an attempt to cheat.

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.

Giri-Wojtaszek also drawn, albeit they got past move 30.

MVL-So drawn just after the time control.

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.

Giri-Wojtaszek also drawn, albeit they got past move 30.

MVL-So drawn just after the time control.

Mamedyarov has beaten Caruana with a decisive kingside attack after an opening that didn't look too promising. Jakovenko has become the first player to take anything off Eljanov in a fairly uneventful draw.

Ding won after a fluctuating (ding-dong ) battle.