Rough start Women World Ch
2 September 2008 14:10 PM CET | Last modified: 14:53 | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags:
The Women’s World Championship in Nalchik has experienced a rough start. Not only did 11 of the 64 eligible players decide not to participate, but already in the first round there was a major dispute.
The Women's World Chess Championship cycle is organised bi-annually and includes National Championships, Zonal Tournaments, Continental Championships and the final stage, the Women's World Chess Championship, which is a 64-player knock out system. The time control is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an increment of 30 seconds per move from move one.
The Women’s World Championship 2008 is held in Nalchik, Russia. The town of Nalchik is the capital of the Kabardino-Balkariain region, which is close to the Georgian border and as reported in two articles, a number of players including all from Georgia decided not to participate.
Although it could have been possible for a few perhaps, there were not replacements at all for these players and so Maia Chiburdanidze, Lela Javakhishvili, Sopio Gvetadze, Maia Lomineishvili, Sopiko Khukhashvili and Nino Khurtsidze (all from Georgia) and Tea Bosboom Lanchava, Karen Zapata, Marie Sebag, Irina Krush and Ekaterina Korbut lost by default in the first round.
In that first round most of the top seeds went through but there were a few upsets. Most surprising was the knockout of WGM Natalia Zhukova (2489, Ukraine). Seeded 13th, she lost in the tiebreak to 52nd seeded WGM Katerine Rohonyan (2321, USA).
Results Round 1
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The schedule of the Women World Ch is very similar to the World Cup’s in Khanty-Mansiysk:
| Thursday | 28 | August | Opening Ceremony/Player’s Meeting |
| Friday | 29 | August | Round 1, game 1 |
| Saturday | 30 | August | Round 1, game 2 |
| Sunday | 31 | August | Tiebreaks |
| Monday | 01 | September | Round 2, game 1 |
| Tuesday | 02 | September | Round 2, game 2 |
| Wednesday | 03 | September | Tiebreaks |
| Thursday | 04 | September | Round 3, game 1 |
| Friday | 05 | September | Round 3, game 2 |
| Saturday | 06 | September | Tiebreaks |
| Sunday | 07 | September | Round 4, game 1 |
| Monday | 08 | September | Round 4, game 2 |
| Tuesday | 09 | September | Tiebreaks |
| Wednesday | 10 | September | Round 5, game 1 |
| Thursday | 11 | September | Round 5, game 2 |
| Friday | 12 | September | Tiebreaks |
| Saturday | 13 | September | Free Day |
| Sunday | 14 | September | Round 6, game 1 |
| Monday | 15 | September | Round 6, game 2 |
| Tuesday | 16 | September | Round 6, game 3 |
| Wednesday | 17 | September | Round 6, game 4 |
| Thursday | 18 | September | Tiebreaks/Closing Ceremony |
The tiebreak rules for the first five rounds are as follows: if the scores are level after the regular games, after a new drawing of colours, two tie break games are played with 25 minutes for each player plus 10 seconds increment. If the score is still level, two five-minute games are played again with 10 seconds increment.
If the score is still level, the players play one decisive sudden death game. The player, who wins the drawing of lots, may choose the colour. White receives 6 minutes, Black 5 minutes, without increment. The winner qualifies for the next round. In case of a draw the player with the black pieces qualifies for the next round.
One of the first-round matches that actually reached the sudden death game was the one between IM Monika Socko (2473, POL) and WIM Sabina-Francesca Foisor (2337, ROM). Socko was playing the White pieces and thus she had started with six minutes against Foisor playing Black and with five minutes on the clock.
In a position where both sides had just one knight besides their king, Foisor’s flag fell. The arbiters present didn’t know whether to declare the game lost because of the flag-fall, or drawn because of the scarce material left on the board, and a heated debate started, which can be seen in a video below.
In the end it was the Appeals Committee that decided the game in Socko’s favour:
[...] the Appeals Committee has decided that indeed based on the provisions of Article 9.6, playing in a most unskilled manner can result in the position indicated by the Chief Arbiter which can lead to a checkmate. Therefore the Appeals Committee has decided that the game is a win for white.
Georgios Makropoulos, Chairman
Lewis Ncube, member
Lakhdar Mazouz, member
Stricktly speaking they might be right, but as IM Anthony Saidy pointed out in Chess Today, it doesn’t require a poor player to get self mated in this position:
Not so, self-mate requires skill! This also applies to positions with K + B vs. K + B (opposite squared) and K + N vs. K + B. So if Foisor had only a king, it would have remained a draw. You can get mated by K + N too vs. your. K + R. What would the appeal committee have decided if Foisor had a rook? [...]
The venue of the Women World Championship
With especially beautiful chairs
The medals that the women are fighting for
Dancers at the Openin Ceremony outside…
…and inside
The first move, with many officials present
Antoaneta Stefanova from Bulgaria
Viktorija Cmylite from Lithuania
Elisabeth Paehtz from Germany
Tania Sachdev from India
Iweta Rajlich from Poland
Atousa Pourkashiyan from Iran
Photos courtesy of FIDE
Links:
Why on earth people continue playing with both one knight?! Does fair play not excist anymore?
Ridiculous.
Shameful that she could actually claim that this is a win. No sense of shame? Is she not embarrassed to do so?
Even more disgraceful that the arbiters can give it.
Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
Was there noone there to put their sensible hat on?
Hapless arbiter clearly losing his calm too.
I once witnessed an incident between Vaganian and M.Gurevich in a blitz game. Vaganian had only a knight and Gurevich a knight and a couple of pawns. Gurevich offered a draw since he had only 2 seconds left, but Vaganian refused, claiming he ‘wanted to play on’. The arbiter did the only right thing - he threateded to give both players a 0. Then they agreed to a draw.
Blame the rules, not the players.
The rules are clear enough: in a blitz game you can’t claim a draw according to rule 10.2 as in the standard rules, and as long as a mate is possible, players are allowed to play on.
Mind that a draw was not ‘half a result’ for Socko - it meant a loss.
Armageddon games ar there to produce a winner. It’s hardly better than throwing dice - Socko may have thought the same; I can’t blame her.
But like (I guess) you, Arne, I long for the bygone days, when Hans Böhm was still playing chess, when disputes like this were resolved by a fair fist fight…
The rules can´t force fair play. It should be like “if it´s very unlikely that one of the players can win, the game is declaired draw”.
An ending knight against knight can in practice not be won, only theoretical, so the players should agree a draw.
@Michel
Can you already hear the sounds of the battles about the definition of your ‘very unlikely’?
On a philosophical note, fair play is by definition only applicable in situations where the rules are not entirely clear. And by almost that same definition, it is not possible to capture reality entirely in rules or words, since reality is continuous and words are discontinuous. We can only try our best; Plato already wondered what exactly defines a table, and we still cannot describe it entirely and completely to everyone’s satisfaction. Still, everybody knows what a table is, and in chess, everybody knows what fair play is and what not. Although of course some people pretend not to.
@euwe (or whoever you are)
You seem (it’s not quite clear what you want to say) to contradict yourself. The rules concerning this situation are entirely clear. I’ve stated that, I don’t hear you disagree with it. So notions of ‘fair play’ are not applicable (according to you). But you say in chess everybody has a notion of fair play. As you drag this into this discussion, you imply it is applicable. So please be a bit less philosophical and a bit more specific about what you mean, please.
Let’s understand one thing that all rules and regulations are created to organize a game of Chess in a framework that would be fair to both proponents. So rules are only a “means”. It’s the game of Chess that is more important and not the rules! So when arguing about the final position of that game, we have to keep one simple thing in mind i.e., if White could really have won that game. The purpose of that Chess game is not to see who plays faster but to see who can win it on the basis of superior skill.
@Amit
First get the rules straight, then talk about fairness.
But first the situation itself.
Socko had herself only one second left on her clock. The two knights were on the board only for about eight seconds. She adjusted the pieces her opponent knocked over. It’s the end of a gruelling tiebreak. It’s about the butter on her bread the next month. What kind of self control can you expect in such a situation?
Now the rules.
As the organizer you decide that in the end a match is decided in a single blitz game. You accept the normal blitz rules. Why?
In a blitz tournament a single game is much less important. It’s simply impossible to put an arbiter at every board where someone claims a draw. So that’s why rule 10.2 (draw claims) is not in force in blitz games.
But here there are only a few games to watch. Why not change the rules and apply rule 10.2 to armageddon games? Then Foisor could simply have stopped the clocks and summoned the arbiter.
All the weight is put on the shoulders of the players. And now about fairness:
I think Socko doesn’t get a fair treatment here, even when you don’t mention her name.
@Frits
That’s what I’m saying; it not possible to force fair play with rules.
Very dumb ruling - but I don’t care to argue the point.
I once had in a blitz game with following postion: White Kb6, Nb4, a6; Black Ka8, Nb8 and black to move.
Black played Nxa6 and offered a draw with 3 seconds on the clock. White played Nd5. Black has the option to lose the knight or to play Nb8, after which he is mated by Nc7. Not an easy choice with 3 seconds on the clock.
Black was confused and he lost on time.
Conclusion: the blitz rules are correct Even with K+N vs K+N the game is not over in a blitz.
If Foisor would have played faster, there was no issue. It was her choice to play at the pace she played. This has nothing to do with fairness from the opponent