Corus R10: Aronian grabs sole lead

64 Responses to “Corus R10: Aronian grabs sole lead”

1. David on January 28th, 2009 20:34
   

   I don’t understand, I thought you have to get a certain number of points in a field of certain strenght, cause it was said that manuel bosboom missed his GM-norm yesterday, but doesn’t he recieve one cause of his win today?
   Can someone explain, cause i didn’t read anything about this.
2. Bacchus on January 28th, 2009 20:54
   

   This Radjabov is lucky, but not a gentleman. The only game won over Ivanchuk thanks the timetrouble, and now, despite the violation of rules, he got a drew. No surprise if he wins the tournament.
3. Bacchus on January 28th, 2009 20:57
   

   draw*
4. Peter Doggers on January 28th, 2009 20:57
   

   Good one, David. I checked it and indeed, he needs +3 for a GM norm in this tournament so it’s still possible.
5. x y on January 28th, 2009 20:59
   

   @bacchus, you do realize that radjabov was winning today’s endgame, right?
   also, what should a gentleman have done?
6. Mulyanto on January 28th, 2009 21:10
   

   You can earn a GM norm in the first 9 cames of a tournament by scoring 6, 6.5 or 7 points depending on the opposition strength. Or you can score a GM norm by having a performance rating of 2601 or higher over a longer tournament. It seems unlikely that he will reach that. I think he needs 2.5/3 for the last 3 games, but maybe 2/3 will suffice for him, I haven’t done the calculations. So far his PR is 2556. As long as he at least draws So on Friday, he gives himself a chance to obtain the norm.
7. Multatuli on January 28th, 2009 21:53
   

   I have to admit that Smeets just got lucky again. He should be at -2 now instead of 50%. Radja could have finished him off a lot of times, too…
8. Nep on January 28th, 2009 22:10
   

   Wil Aronian pull out a third win in a row at Corus? It is surprising he never seems to be considered one of the main contenders for first place at big tournaments. I mean, not that he is not considered at all, but his name always appear after at least two other names (for example, this year the “favorites” are Carlsen, Ivanchuck and Morozevich, then maybe Aronian.
9. JeroenW on January 28th, 2009 22:18
   

   I have to disagree there, Multatuli. If Smeets was lucky he would be at +1.

   Why is opponent’s inability to manage the clock/time = lucky to you?
10. Michel83 on January 28th, 2009 22:30
    

    Yifan clearly didn’t want to win today, I got almost crazy watching her game (and I suppose her trainer or spectators in the press room got too).
    She just decided to play solid when she could have outplayed Caruana (what is funny, because often she seems to try to outplay stronger opponents when she should play solidly).

    First she surprisingly didn’t dare to play the sharp knight sack 28. e x f7, which following Fritz AND me (what a team! ) would have given her loads of (winning) pressure. The game seems clearly (!) won after that!
    But ok, maybe her trainers told her to play less agressively so she didn’t dare to or simply miscalculated somewhere and thought Caruana could tackle the attack.

    Then, and this I really don’t understand, she played 41. Nf6+ instead of the logical 41. Nc5, which even without Fritz a patzer like me could see as by far the most logical and obvious move. I have no clue if Caruana could have hold it to a draw, but with Nc5 she was winning the quality (in like 2 moves, so no calculation needed!) and getting an edge. So instead of switching her knight for the rook she just went for a drawish Nf6+…
    Am I missing something? Am I going crazy? Why did she play Nf6+ instead of Nc5? It’s impossible she didn’t see Nc5…

    Would be happy to get answers. Maybe it’s just me not seeing clear counter-moves.
11. Bacchus on January 28th, 2009 22:43
    

    Nep, Morozevich & Co. are considered “favorites” in accordance with their ELO rating, nothing more. But If we shoot a glance at their current rating, we can see that both Ivanchuk and Morozevich are far far away from Aronian, respectively no.9 and 10, while Levon is fourth, slightly (just 2 points) behind Carlsen. So I guess this “rating” criteria is very dubious.
    But i disagree with you on the matter of Levon’s “never” being considered the main contender. This year’s presentation of favorites on the official site of Corus is exception to the rule, a “blunder” )). they will admit their fault.
12. Bacchus on January 28th, 2009 22:49
    

    2 x y, gentleman should admit the violation of rules and resign

    “If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces”.
13. Eiae on January 28th, 2009 23:08
    

    Aronian is a major favorite in any tournament he participates in.
    Look at any other player in the field and you’ll realize their tournament wins are few and far apart. Not so for Aronian, he racks them up consistently.

    After all, there is more to winning a tournament than just rating.

    Guys like Karjakin and Carlsen might become as good as Aronian at winning, but they are far from that point yet, imo.
14. Thomas on January 29th, 2009 00:06
    

    @Bacchus: “Current rating” in your post refers to the inofficial live ratings. Here Ivanchuk and Moro are way down because they lost many points in this very tournament, also Aronian is closing in on Carlsen because he performed better at Corus. But rating favorites were defined based on the Jan 2009 FIDE list (the numbers in the tournament table above), obviously not including the Corus 2009 results … .
    Myself, I had given (in alphabetic order) Aronian, Carlsen, Ivanchuk, Morozevich and Radjabov roughly equal winning chances, couldn’t choose and therefore didn’t participate in the poll on this website ,:). Well, Ivanchuk and especially Moro ended up on the other end of the table – not really surprising either because they are notoriously unpredictable, the only predictable thing being that they have many decisive games. And at least I was right to predict/propose that Navara would perform way above his current rating in the B group.

    @Eiae: It is a bit unfair to compare (long-term) performances of Aronian and Carlsen. After all, Carlsen joined the absolute world top as recently as 2008. And in that year, he was “as good as Aronian at winning”, so he is “near or exactly at that point” by now. At this tournament, his result is a bit worse, but not really a failure either … .
15. Castro on January 29th, 2009 01:22
    

    @Bacchus
    “gentleman should admit the violation of rules and resign ”

    What??? What kind of fantasy are you in? You yourself wrote that there is a penalty! Do you know what is it? You yourself wrote that the clock should be STOPED! And, above all, What in the world is related to resignation? Gentlemanhood? Please be kind to us!

    @JeroenW
    “Why is opponent‚Äôs inability to manage the clock/time = lucky to you?”

    In fact it’s no question of luck. Radjabov should simply have won the game. Why? Because he broke the rules pressing the clock, his opponent should have stopped the clock, called an arbiter, a penalty of some minutes more for Smeets should be put on the clock, and now it’s Smeets turn to move. The game is lost for him (there would be a chance of winning on time, but it was not likely, as Radja have to make just one simple and easy move).
    Now, having pressed the clock, Smeets ilegaly (breaking the rules) made Radjabov’s time run out. The arbiter should now give time to both players. At least never allow ending the game to Smeets on time at that moment. Never!
    The “solution” is acceptable just because Radjabov accepted it.
16. Bacchus on January 29th, 2009 02:25
    

    Castro, don’t be so nervous and let me explain.
    The problem (for arbiters) is that both players had infractions, Radjabov broke the rule, then Smeets. So the best way (for arbiters) to come out of this situation – agree to the draw. But the whole trouble appeared when Radjabov (not Smeets) in a timetrouble knocked (displaced) his piece over and instead of reestablishing the correct position on his own time, according to the rules of FIDE, he hit his clock. And here comes the factor of gentlemanhood…
17. blueofnoon on January 29th, 2009 05:07
    

    I do not understand your argument. Everyone can voilate rules of chess that is why penalties are set for each case.

    Even a super GM might sometimes go mad and try to castle after already moving his/her king in previous moves. According to your opinion, do they have to resign in such a case?

    The rule says clearly that in this case you have to move your king to any legal square, and I would protest too if my opponent required something else.
18. Peter Doggers on January 29th, 2009 08:56
    

    Here’s Mark Crowther’s take:

    Then there was a huge time scramble when Radjabov on move 39 with only a second to go knocked the e8 bishop from its square and pressed the clock.

    The details come from Peter Dogger’s report http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/aronian-grabs-sole-lead-in-10th-round-corus/ he adds two points: “Smeets started his clock again and said something along the lines of “you should correct the piece first”. Radjabov’s flag fell, and the Azeri GM protested.” and then mentions there was a big meeting of the arbiters. He then adds “Because both players had done something wrong (which is clear for Radjabov, but Smeets shouldn’t have spoken during the game and probably he should have stopped the clock, instead of starting Radjabov’s again), the arbiters suggested to the players a draw as the most ethical outcome.”

    I rather think he is right in saying that this is the right outcome in natural justice but I rather doubt it was the correct decision under the rules of chess.

    I checked the rules of chess http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook?id=124&view=article and found no mention of it being fobidden to speak to one’s opponent. One is only told “12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims or unreasonable offers of a draw. “. When you repress the clock the player under such a situation might be expected to explain his actions briefly. In addition I know there have probably been a lot of changes over the year but I recall reading Paul Keres just pressed the clock back and shrugged his shoulders when faced by such a situation (although there were more pieces knocked over) a long time ago, maybe he knew to keep his mouth shut.

    That Smeets took the correct action in repressing the clock seems to be confirmed by the FIDE rule:

    FIDE Rule 7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter’s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

    I don’t think the arbiter is required to establish the bishop is on e8 so why not just press the clock back?

    The rules may have changed from the online version or be different for electronic clocks, but to my eye its pretty clear Smeets did what he was supposed to do.

    There is nothing as ugly as a time scramble (except a time scramble in an Armageddon Game) and I think it would be quite interesting for the arbiters to issue a ruling not just on the game but also to say what the absolute ideal, perfect behaviour from Smeets would have been (obviously just setting the bishop back on the board and continuing on would have created the least trouble) so perhaps the question should be “what was he entitled to do?”"
19. Xtra on January 29th, 2009 09:29
    

    rather clumsy to claim it is forbidden to speak to ones opponent. that would make it impossible to say “draw?”…

    it is pretty bad that one of the largest tournaments in the world cant handle a situation like this. what to do in time scramble issues must be the single most important thing an arbiter has to take care of, so you´d think they would know exactly what to do.
20. Dimitri on January 29th, 2009 10:51
    

    “and said something along the lines of ‚Äúyou should correct the piece first‚Äù.”

    Peter, who told you this? This is not what I remember that happened. Smeets made just one sound, something like “Jaaa” in an outraged tone.
21. Peter Doggers on January 29th, 2009 11:02
    

    Don’t remember, but I updated the article – can’t argue with an eye witness who was much closer to the board than I was, blocking my view.
22. Titus on January 29th, 2009 11:32
    

    Giving extra time to the opponent, as suggested by Castro, is not a good penalty. It is more logical to subtract some time from the player’s clock. It that case Radja would have lost. The rule says “penalise the player” not “reward the opponent”. If giving extra time to the opponent would be common this is strange.
    In that case, Radja would get rewarded by breaking rule 1. If he would have put back the piece he would have lost on time, so he presses the clock. Now Smeets is rewarded by breaking rule nr 2. If he would correctly stop the clock, he just get useless extra time while Radja can prepare to make his last move and win. So also he is rewarded by braking a rule. The decision is reasonable therefore but it would be good if the rules are less vague on this point
23. jan van der marel on January 29th, 2009 11:48
    

    Gewoon lekker schaken!
24. Frits Fritschy on January 29th, 2009 12:40
    

    Article 6.8 talks about stopping your clock and starting the opponents clock (after making a move). So stopping your clock is just half of the action, starting your opponent’s is not part of that. Article 6.13b reads: “A player may stop the clocks only in order to seek the arbiter`s assistance”. So it’s not legal to also start your opponents clock. Moreover, you’re not allowed to stop the clock just to make something clear to your opponent.
    It’s not illegal to talk to your opponent, but it is so to distract him (“in any way”). So it depends on the circumstances. You may offer a draw or a cup of coffee after making your move and before pressing the clock, but it is clearly distracting to do so when your opponent’s clock is running. If Smeets said something about readjusting the pieces after pressing the clock, that was clearly distracting. In 2 seconds you cannot readjust the pieces, make a move and at the same time listen to your opponent. Normally, an arbiter would give a warning in such a case.
    Article 7.3 is clear about what should happen when pieces are displaced: “If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter`s assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.” In a correct procedure, Smeets should have just stopped the clocks, the arbiter might allot him some time compensation and the arbiter should restart Radjabovs clock to give him the chance to correct his mistake (to put the bishop back on e8).
    So, both players did something against the rules for which they could be penalised, although not by direct loss of the game. It is not clear whether you should give more importance to the offence being the first (Radjabov’s) or the offence being the more serious (Smeets’s, because his was unaccidental, although provoked). But an arbiter has some freedom of action. See the Preface of the Laws of Chess: “The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.” The extreme time trouble (and the problems it would give to readjust the clocks – 2 or 3 seconds on Radjabov’s clock would make quite a difference) is certainly a “special factor” here, so I think their “solution to the problem” was excellent, and in keeping with the rules.
25. Titus on January 29th, 2009 12:58
    

    Frits Fritschy:
    “the arbiter should restart Radjabovs clock to give him the chance to correct his mistake (to put the bishop back on e8).” This is of course the delicate part. So the arbiter presses the clock of Radjabov and then Radja has to grap the piece (is he allowed to already grap the piece when the arbitor starts the clock?? Move his hands close to it?? what if the piece is on the ground, should the player be seated while the arbiter restarts the clock???) and put in back on the board. Most likely Radjabov would step the time limit.
    So Smeets is punished by losing 0.5 points as he would have the full point if he did anything correctly?? While, on the other hand, Radja is rewarded by 0.5 point by breaking the law. However, it is not nice to win in such a situation by having a completely lost position, so it is an act of gentlemanship of Smeets to overtep the rules as well, so that both get half a point
26. adam on January 29th, 2009 13:30
    

    May I remind you all what Radjabov said after round 3?

    “Okay, I didn’t ask for a flag. Okay, I asked only once to improve the piece, because he made Rxc7 and the rook was down, and this you have to do for your own time. So I pressed back.” And so on. I don’t have any problem with Radja, but a couple days later protesting due to Smeets was saying “Jaaa”, well I don’t know.

    In my opinion what really does matter here is that one should change the regulations to match this view above. Raise your hands if you would stop the clocks and call for the arbiter instead of hitting the button back!? And there is the cue of dubious definitions one could go through (what if there is a pawn against an army and still won on time, or there is a helpmate, what is a clear winning position, etc.).

    On the other hand I completely agree with Xtra on these stories currently being one of the most important issues in chess. Arbiters should be much more prepared than offering a draw and hoping that the players would just accept. They should review the corresponding rules after every single similar case (e.g. Zatonskih-Krush not that long ago)…
27. Frits Fritschy on January 29th, 2009 13:39
    

    @titus
    I once saw a teammate play 3 moves within one second, so who knows what Radjabov could have done?
    Neither player was penalised. As Radjabovs flag fell because of an illegal action by Smeets, the game was still in progress. So they could agree to a draw, saving the arbiters from a difficult situation; the arbiter just proposed this, he didn’t declare the game drawn. The rules didn’t force the arbiter to declare the game lost for any player, so all of this is completely legal.
    I guess both players just didn’t want to gamble.
28. Titus on January 29th, 2009 13:57
    

    @Frits Fritschy
    I agree with the decision, or proposal, by the arbiters and by the players accepting it. However, it would have been better if the rules would be more clear.
    It is possible to make 3 moves in one second, but not if you have to grab a piece from the ground that was accidentally pushed off the board, put the piece back and then press the clock. The rules seem not to clarify what the arbiters should have done if Smeets would have stopped the clock. I propose the following: the player should sit on his hands on his seat and the piece should be put back to its position (on the ground, on the table whatever) when it fell from the board if some of the players moved it when the clock was stopped. Then, as soon the arbiter restarts the clock, he/she should grap the piece, put it back and hit the clock. This sounds fair… maybe not so much for handicapt people but it is topsport…;-)
29. Frits Fritschy on January 29th, 2009 14:18
    

    The Preface of the FIDE Laws of Chess wisely starts with: “The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game…” and I suggest we should accept that. Arbiters are not supposed to be automatons who spit out clearcut decisions for just any situation. It’s part of their job to sometimes make decisions based upon incomplete rules or contradictory information, at the same time keeping an eye on the circumstances. I think they should keep that right.
30. Castro on January 29th, 2009 14:22
    

    @Peter

    “FIDE Rule 7.3 If a player displaces one or more pieces, he shall re-establish the correct position on his own time. If necessary, either the player or his opponent shall stop the clocks and ask for the arbiter‚Äôs assistance. The arbiter may penalise the player who displaced the pieces.

    I don‚Äôt think the arbiter is required to establish the bishop is on e8 so why not just press the clock back? (…) what was he entitled to do?”

    One thing is to understand and even maybe sympatise with what Smeets did. I did similar one or two times! Another thing is aplying the rules. He had two procedures in facing the opponent’s fault: Like you said, saying “J’?°doube” and putting himself the bishop in place would end the story. But he is entitled to claim something and punishing the faulter: Stop the clock, call the arbiter, get more time. This is the rules. Nothing more.
    Now, Titus have a point:

    @Titus

    “Radja would get rewarded by breaking rule”.

    These alternatives are both helping him (even if one thinks Radja would win anyway).
    But those are the limitations in aplying the law to real, concrete circunstances.
    There are lots of this kind of little injustices in chess. Just another example is that it’s not fair that only white’s clock is working, if both players are absent at the begining of a game…

    After Radjabov, Smeets had also an understandable but ilegal behaviour: Radjabov now also could rightly protest about distraction and making his time run out without making a move.
    And because Radja’s penalty could never be — under the rules! — losing the game, the situation of he having time to play must be restored. (Plus munutes given by Smeets faulting, as Smeets would have more minutes because of Radja’s fault.) It doesn’t matter who begun breaking the rules! That just explains provocation in understanding meaning! But Smeets could and should react differently, and even the idea of Radja’s deliberatly falting in order to obtain something would still have to be proved!

    @Bacchus

    “And here comes the factor of gentlemanhood‚Ķ”

    Because of what I’ve just written, even this could be no real question. You can suppose, or even be sure, but first ,that has nothing to do with rules, and second it is indeed posible that, being nervous, Radjabov just pressed the clock mechanically, being unable to manage the bishop’s question in his mind. That’s why there is a penalty that is not losing the game, for instance…
31. Peter Doggers on January 29th, 2009 14:50
    

    Just posted a separate video on the game Radjabov-Smeets which includes the press conference given by the arbiters after the game. See for yourself what happened! (One small detail becomes clear: after Smeets started Radjabov’s clock again, Radjabov also pressed the clock one more time, starting Smeets’ clock again, and then the arbiter stopped the clock.)
32. Castro on January 29th, 2009 15:17
    

    Cannot watch videos in this computer. It just freezes.
    Anyway, that small detail is good to know, but wouldn’t alone change my opinion: It seems to me that had Radjabov mantain the protest, he must have time in his clock and Smeets to move…
33. Castro on January 29th, 2009 15:20
    

    Sorry, unless it was proven that Radja’s time run out before pressing the first time…
34. Frits Fritschy on January 29th, 2009 15:20
    

    One thing I understand from the video is that one of the arbiters is of the opinion that it is allowed to not just stop the clock, but also to start the opponent’s clock in this situation. He even thinks Smeets has won on time. That is illogical: a flag fall ends the game immediately, so after that a draw couldn’t be agreed upon anymore.
    But, as I stated earlier, the FIDE rules tell a different story.
35. Castro on January 29th, 2009 15:34
    

    @Frits Fritschy
    “That is illogical: a flag fall ends the game immediately”

    This is false, and that’s nothing illogical about true and false (and even for some situations without conflict/protests, the game ends in just a draw)
36. Frits Fritschy on January 29th, 2009 16:27
    

    @Castro
    A flag fall does end the game immediately, although the result can be a draw, for instance when the opponent has no mating potential. But any moves, even mate, and draw offers or the accepting of a draw offer after a flag fall are irrelevant, if player or arbiter has observed the fact.
37. Thomas on January 29th, 2009 18:22
    

    Another aspect of the story: What do you guys (particularly the Dutch ones) think about Gert Ligterink’s coverage in “de Volkskrant”?
    The title of the article was “Een aandoenlijk staaltje van amateurisme – Arbiter dwingt Radjabov en Smeets tot bizarre remise” (my imperfect English translation: “Remarkable case of amateurism – arbiter forces Radjabov and Smeets to sign a bizarre draw”).
    IMHO the subtitle is simply wrong – the arbiters suggested, but did not force a draw upon the players. And the entire article does not give the slightest hint about what a ‘professional’ solution would have been. So the take-home message to most readers (who cannot appreciate the tricky situation for all parties involved) is “the Corus tournament is organized by amateurs”.

    IMHO a better title would have been “Time-trouble drama between Radjabov and Smeets – players accept arbiter’s suggestion to declare the game drawn”.
    And I can only speculate about a ‘professional solution’ – playing the entire game over on today’s rest day ???
38. JM on January 29th, 2009 19:05
    

    To all those who believe Smeets should have stopped the clock instead of pressing it: I agree with Smeets that’s just silly. Using Smeets’ words, this would mean that upon a rule breaking of your opponent in a heavy time scramble you have to ‘grab for a little button’. This would mean a huge advantage for the player committing the rule breaking. It seems quite clear to me from watching the video that both players agree it’s the correct thing to do to repress the clock. Radjabov confirms this literally: according to him the fact Smeets talked to him during the game was the offense.

    I agree with Mark Crowther that this is the most logical interpretation of the FIDE-rules. Assistance of the arbiter is only needed in case the correct placement of the fallen piece has to be established. Also, if I’m not mistaken, it was stated at some point in the video that the arbiters’ first inclination was to declare a loss on time for Radjabov. Radjabov is clearly the lucky party. If he would have done everything according to the rules, he wouldn’t have pressed to clock, would have corrected the pieces first and would probably have overstepped the time limit.

    I do believe the way the situation was resolved is better for chess than another Short-Cheparinov-like case. Those who’d prefer to have as many situations as possible covered by the FIDE-rules will probably disagree with me, though… I won’t argue about that, it’s just a matter of opinion.
39. Castro on January 29th, 2009 19:07
    

    @Frits Fritschy

    “A flag fall does end the game immediately, although the result can be a draw, for instance when the opponent has no mating potential. But any moves, even mate, and draw offers or the accepting of a draw offer after a flag fall are irrelevant, if player or arbiter has observed the fact.”

    Sorry, Frits, but if one knows — and that seems to be the imediate and undisputable case — that some flag has fallen because of an illegal clock pressing by the opponent, the game is not over! Unless you wanted to punish the one who provoked the flag fall to loose…

    And this is true, irrespective of having or not existed previous illegalities by the other player, as these were not punishable with a loss.
    Other thing: The arbiter who thinks Smeets was right, and had won on time, is simply wrong! He just helped to establish the confusion, although it may have also helped to prepare the players to the somewhat “poetic justice” of the draw agreed. But it looks as the rules were in that way badly broken also by the arbiters themselves. Good for everyone it ended peacefully, but I think Radja had the right to wait for Smeets next move with time on his clock, UNLESS his time were off before.
40. Castro on January 29th, 2009 19:18
    

    @JM

    Without your last paragraph, your whole post would be completely wrong-wrong-wrong!
    Complete bending of the rules in order to have what one thinks is justice and to have punished who one thinks is the bad guy.
    That kind of logic is also present when someone thinks his neibour should dey, and one are entiteled to kill him legaly.
    It’s ridiculous!
41. Castro on January 29th, 2009 19:19
    

    *dye
42. titus on January 29th, 2009 19:33
    

    @Castro
    You ignore the whole point that Radja didnot have time left to pick up the piece put it back on the board on the right square. So what would be the right scenario if Smeets correctly stopped the clock and asked for the arbiter?? Smeets might get some extra time, the arbiter has to repress the clock….BUT nothing is said
    about the issue whether it should still be Radjabov to put the knocked-off piece back or this should be done by the arbiter. If it is profitable to break the law, even if being caught, then the law is absurd. Both Radja and Smeets would have lost if they did everything according to the rules, smartly they didn’t. But now, Fide, fix this rule!
43. Castro on January 29th, 2009 20:27
    

    I’m I being censored?
44. Castro on January 29th, 2009 20:36
    

    I wrote a post that doesn’t show up.
    Of course I tried to post it again, and it tells me it would be a duplicated post. It seems logical… but where is it?
    Are there some site errors or is it posible I am realy being censored?
45. Castro on January 29th, 2009 20:40
    

    Well, tried again, for no use.
    OK, if someone doesn’t want me to talk…
46. Michel83 on January 29th, 2009 21:15
    

    @ Castro

    It’s possible your post is “awaiting moderation” (actually look again, it is possible (but might depend on your computer/connction) your post is only shown to you with the sentence “your post is awaiting moderation” next to it), so it will only get posted after somebody had a look at it manually. There is a couple of rules where the system automatically requests moderation for a post.

    This is the case with posts with links in them and I think also with really long posts (probably out of spam-fear); eg I wrote a pretty long post (without link) about the game Hou Yifan – Caruana and it also “awaited moderation” and only showed up the day after; I only posted some thoughts about the game, so it was definitely just because my post was so long (I suppose there might also be some key words, eg insults, which result in “awaiting moderation”).

    Probably the same in your case, so don’t be so paranoid!
47. Mike on January 29th, 2009 21:17
    

    Fixing the rule:
    1- In no event any player should be allowed to hit the opponent’s clock;
    2- Failure in respecting this norm should cause immediate elimination of the faulty player. If both players hit the opponent’s clock in the same game, both are given the score 0 (zero);

    3- It is necessary to redesign the digital chess clocks. It must have a BIG RED button on it’s side, for the purpose of STOPING the clock;

    4- In case of pieces displacements, or any other abnormal condition, the blaming player(s) should be allowed ONLY to STOP the clock and call for the arbiter’s assistance, but NEVER, I say NEVER to stop the opponent clock!

    5- If a player misplace some pieces(s) and hit his own clock, he, or his opponent, or the arbiter, should be allowed to hit the RED STOP BUTTON ONLY!

    If nothing is done, is the entire responsibility of the arbiter, to correct the pieces (or any abnormality) and resume the game properly. The priority should be the game, the same way in Football the priority is the Goal, which is the spectacle.

    That’s the point.
48. Mike on January 29th, 2009 21:24
    

    Item 4) above I meant: never to hit (start or stop) the opponent’s clock, and not only to stop…
49. Castro on January 29th, 2009 22:40
    

    @Michel83

    It never showed “awaiting moderation”, it is not very long (there are longer even in this thread), I never insult (could it be my bad english produced an ugly word? ), and it didn’t have links. So it’s puzzling…
50. ZinkBav on January 30th, 2009 00:38
    

    @Castro
    What JM wrote seems to me perfectly reasonable. So does what Mark Crowther wrote.

    Please consider the possibility that it is actually yourself who misinterprets the rules, for some reason or another.
51. Castro on January 30th, 2009 01:07
    

    @ZinkBav

    I consider . Seriously, I did. Did you do the same?
    I read Mark Cowther some minutes ago. Respecting opinions, he is wrong too.
    Things like
    - What Keres (and tousands of others along the years) did and we always have seen…
    - What I, myself did, more than once…
    - Radjabov’s fault would reward him something…
    - He did to Ivanchuck the same Smeets did to him…
    - One or more arbiters were convinced they should consider flag…
    - The “logical” “You made the mess, so fix it now, in your time, as the rules say you should”…
    And so on… are things that must not to enforce our judgement!
    Radjabov faultered and it could even be deliberatly (I don’t believe it), but his fault has some penalty — not a loss, not a loss on time (based on “You’d run out of time anyway, so you faltered”).
    And that if the opponent complains, and complains by the rules. Sorry for the romantic feelings!
    If a decision was made granted the game to Smeets, then I predict that, analising what happened and BY THE RULES an appeal by Radjabov would be an “easy win”.
52. Frits Fritschy on January 30th, 2009 01:57
    

    @castro+titus
    A late reaction, but sometimes I have to play chess myself…
    Castro, I think we completely agree about what the arbiters said at the press conference. Radjabov couldn’t have lost on time, because Smeets’s pressing the clock was against the rules. I just said that it’s illogical for an arbiter to accept an agreed draw when he thinks that, before that, a player has overstepped time.
    Smeets’s reaction was understandable, but unnecessary: the arbiter was present, even if his flag would have fallen it would be clear to the arbiter that this had everything to do with Radjabov’s offence.
    Now, let’s suppose Smeets had done the correct thing: stopping the clock and seek the arbiter’s assistance. According to article 13.4 the arbiter can apply one or more penalties, including declaring the game lost. The rules give the arbiter freedom to choose which penalty to apply.
    In this case, an arbiter could have argued: “Radjabov had so little time left, that moving slower, without knocking over a piece, might have resulted in a loss on time (A). Knocking over a piece and pressing the opponents clock before readjusting the position is against the rules (B). It is impossible to recreate the exact circumstances prior to this offence [as Titus makes clear]. Just giving Smeets extra time would disregard (A), so we declare the game lost for Radjabov because of (B).”
    Somehow, I’m glad this didn’t happen. The arbiters may not have showen their best at the press conference, but they came to a wise conclusion.
53. Castro on January 30th, 2009 02:41
    

    Yes, you’re right in that the arbiter may realy rule a loss, I forgot that simple issue! But 1. It would never be a loss on time, it would be a penalty. and 2. It seams to me an excesive penalty because of a) Smeets didn’t complain (and we could go no further!) b) After all the offense is just a piece out of place c) Either bad intentions should be proven, or just, say, 1 second should be on Radja’s clock before Smeets hit it, otherwise a loss would definitivly be far too much. I didn’t see the video, but it was said Radjabov had 6 seconds… And d) (Not as important, but…): The clock is part of the game, but thinking about the posibility of Radjabov making one more move (and sometimes 1 second is enough for several!), the behaviour of the players with the consequences more far away (if not corrected) from the logic of the chess position on the board is that from Smeets, not Radja’s.
    So yes, the arbiters realy could rule a loss to Radja (and even simultaneously half a point to Smeets! Or a win, or a loss to both…). They have that power. But praticaly they couldn’t… or at least couldn¬¥t stand an appeal.
54. chess dude on January 30th, 2009 06:00
    

    wow….i’m reading all of the comments and i agree w/ castro and frits fritschy.
55. Dimitri on January 30th, 2009 10:42
    

    Castro, maybe you should see the video. If you look carefully you see that the only way Radjabov’s flag could have fellt, is if he had one second left after making his move.
56. acirce on January 30th, 2009 11:02
    

    Again, the arbiter said Radjabov had 6 seconds left BEFORE 39.Re7. I can’t make out from any of the videos how long he took to play 39.Re7, but it may easily have been several seconds.
57. acirce on January 30th, 2009 11:03
    

    … also he said “I think” it was 6 seconds. It’s not like it was a firm and official statement.
58. Titus on January 30th, 2009 11:30
    

    @Fritschy Frits
    Thanks for your clear explanation. The arbiter has more freedom than just giving Smeets extra time, which would be very advantageous voor Radja. Still, it would be very interesting to know what the arbiters would have done if Smeets correctly stopped the clock and asked for the arbiter’s assistance. Maybe chessvibes could ask this question if they get the chance to interview one of the arbiters.
59. acirce on January 30th, 2009 11:57
    

    “There was also some doubt that restarting an opponent‚Äôs clock was obeying the letter of the law, even though this procedure is standard practice at all levels of play and, from personal experience, I know has the stamp of approval of Chess Caf?©‚Äôs Geurt Gijssen.” — Ian Rogers

    http://main.uschess.org/content/view/9089/508/
60. Castro on January 30th, 2009 23:42
    

    “Some doubt”??? The “letter of the law” is something already writen, ready to be read! Not to follow the oposite, that’s for sure!
61. Castro on January 30th, 2009 23:51
    

    Also, IA Mr Geurt Gijssen is a human being and makes errors, like me and everyone else. I have met some other (big) mistake from him (he never corrected) some years ago.
    (Of course I’d like and I hope to speak of the issue with him again, but it was not posible until now. Anyway, here the matter is different)
62. Castro on January 30th, 2009 23:56
    

    Is my post (that “duplicated” and never apeared one) from yesterday arround 20:25 PM being “moderated”?
63. chess dude on January 31st, 2009 02:59
    

    hmmm…..id ount thinks so.
64. chess dude on January 31st, 2009 03:00
    

    oops it’s doun’t sorry. =(

Feel free to leave a comment...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!