Ivanchuk: “I have a question”
9 June 2009, 12.04 CET | By Peter Doggers | Filed under: Reports | Tags: Rules & regulations
At the end of the last press conference on Sunday in Le??n, when press officer Leontxo Garcia asked if there were any more questions, it was Vassily Ivanchuk who said: “I have a question.” In the second blitz game the players had reached the famous Rook and Knight versus Rook ending, which Carlsen tried in vain to win, for 53 moves. Ivanchuk asked why the arbiter did not interfere.
In the second blitz of final of the Ciudad de Le??n, Ivanchuk and Carlsen reached the ending Rook and Knight versus Rook (which is theoretically drawn, but can be tricky – Kasparov once beat Polgar in it), with Carlsen trying to win it with the black pieces. Black took the last pawn on move 47 and so on move 97, fifty moves had been played without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
Game viewer
Click on the pairings at the top of the board to reveal a drop down list of all the games. Click on the arrow under the board just once, then the arrow keys of your keyboard also work. Silverlight works on all browsers and platforms except for Linux, but this should be fixed soon. Contact us for questions, not in the comments section, please.
As it was a blitz game (5 minutes + 3 seconds increment), naturally the players did not record the moves, and having made no progress, exactly at move 100, Carlsen offered the draw. At the press conference Ivanchuk asked about the specific rules in such a situation. Why didn’t the arbiter interfere, like at the Amber tournament? Can a player claim, even if he didn’t write down the moves? Can he use the monitor for this?
As the blitz rules don’t say anything about the fifty move rule, the general Laws of Chess apply.
5.2e The game may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. (See Article 9.3)
9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
1. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
2. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
The correct interpretation (and we got this confirmed by Geurt Gijssen) is that a player should claim himself, and the arbiter should not interfere. (Unfortunately there was no way for Ivanchuk to know whether the 50 had been reached or not.)
The player doesn’t need to prove whether he’s right; stating that “fifty moves have been played without the movement of any pawn and without any capture” should be enough. It’s up to the arbiter to check if he’s right or not, using the screen, a PGN file or, preferably, his own notebook.
And, a little addendum by Gijssen, for if Ivanchuk is reading this: at the Amber tournament the arbiter tells the players when they can claim. It’s up to the players whether they claim or not.
 ShareThis
|  Print
|
Blitz chess is a very good thing for chess players (for various reasons), but no real chess, in more than one sense.
The aparentely logical “As the blitz rules don‚Äôt say anything about the fifty move rule, the general Laws of Chess apply” is not that logical, after all.
Firstly because many of them are just imposible to aply. And also another important detail:
A claim is demanded. Now, in order to be a real “claim”, the claimant needs to be in possesion of the means of proof (even if they are just counting on other people — arbiters, for instance —- to check it), otherwise it is no claim at all, in the chess sense.
But in blitz external interferences are not the regarded in same way as in chess! Even if someone is trying to win a game on the clock (say by repetedly playing his king near a corner), the arbiter CANNOT interfere (nor any claim will procede: Blitz is “Come on, play on!”, except for things like ilegal moves).
Ivanchuck must know this, his question must be seen more as an indirect critic to the rules, and maybe a future participation of his ideas in changing them, and THAT is more interesting than blured situations…
@Castro: The general Laws of Chess do apply where not overridden by blitz or rapid rules, because the blitz rules say so (C2. resp. B2.)
> Now, in order to be a real “claim”, the claimant needs to be in possesion of the means of proof
That’s not true. A claim is a claim when you make it. In most blitz tournaments it’s useless to make a 50-moves claim, because the arbiter has no way to check it. But if the arbiter has the possibility (and the time) to check your claim, as in Ivanchuk’s case, and if your claim is correct, he would grant the draw.
@Castro: I read (somewhere) that Ivanchuk once asked an arbiter whether he was allowed to castle in a position where the b1/b8 sqare was under attack. So even if you are a brilliant chess player you can still be ignorant about some of the rules.
@Thorn: Don’t you think you have to write which place is this somewhere you are refering to? Who will take your claim seriously otherwise?
Isn’t it insulting to Ivanchuk that Carlsen actually tried winning the endgame?
Since when is trying to win a game insulting?
Try to win an even endgame in a blitz game is quite impolite.
There starts the confusion! And no, I didn’t start it. Not even who made news out of this. Ivanchuck started it.
(I’m probably being father this morning, so maybe later I’ll answer)
For instance,
@Bartleby
You’re so wrong in many ways! And also maybe I didn’t express myself acurately too. Maybe tomorrow…
“Isn‚Äôt it insulting to Ivanchuk that Carlsen actually tried winning the endgame?”
“Try to win an even endgame in a blitz game is quite impolite”
Dominguez was more impolite here, when he tried to win the same “even” endgame when it wasn’t blitz, and the even more impolite thing was that he won:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1499346
If the game is drawn, then it will end in a draw. Or perhaps one of the player will make a mistake and the other one will win. There is nothing impolite or insulting about that.
The starting position is even too. So maybe it is impolite to even start playing?
When my opponent offers a draw in an even position I always reject it. Of course my level is not comparable to top level, but my answer is always “yes I think it’s even too, but lets play it out.” Sometimes my opponent makes a mistake and I win, sometimes I make a mistake and I lose, and sometimes we reach a really really obvious drawn position. I only take draws if I don’t feel like playing, but that is very rare, because if I don’t feel like playing, then i would start a game in the first place, would I?
If you don’t feel like playing, then don’t start a game! Othertwise play! Rook and knight is certainly not so even. It is by the tablebases, but many top players have lost it. So it can’t be all that elementary and “even”, because they wouldn’t have lost it then. There is nothing wrong with trying, and thats what Carlsen did. He tried, and Chucky was up to the task and defend it. Congratulations to both.
I agree with gg, “me” and others: it‚Äôs certainly reasonable and not insulting IMO to try to win R+N vs R.
On the other hand, the interpretation of the 50 move rule in blitz would suggest that after you think about 40-45 moves have been played, you should start claiming every move. At the very least, it will buy a little time while the arbiter does the calculation for you
.
This brings to mind a game I once saw between two clubmates. Both had K+R and no tactics winning a Rook were possible but one had less than a minute to finish the game. The player with more time refused a draw offer haha. The arbiter intervened on request of the short of time player, but the two hardly ever spoke again to each other at club meetings.
In my opinion the basic problem in all this is the increasing usage of blitz games to decide highly important contests. In recent times we have even been riscing that WCh-matches could be decided by such games. In this actual case there were important prestige and some substantial price money at stake.
Blitz chess is such a chaotic sport. It is basically not possible to make rules and regulations covering every incident that can happen very rapidly during such games.
Playing blitz is great fun, and now and then we can also organize som blitz tournaments to decide who is best at that. particular field. But it should never be taken too seriously.
@Grant
> On the other hand, the interpretation of the 50 move rule in blitz would suggest
> that after you think about 40-45 moves have been played, you should start
> claiming every move.
I don’t think that would work. If you make an incorrect claim you usually get a time penalty.
Bartleby: Oh, well … time to learn to count to 50 on my fingers, then
.
Yes, yes – counting, counting, counting, and we all know that this is not possible, when it comes to a blitz game – neither for the arbiters or the players. The game of chess is basically a game for ladies and gentlemen, and that goes especcially for blitz. If you do not follow the unwritten rules, it is to no fun for anyone.
But when there are money, prestige and/or titles at stake, the moral standards will eventually slide away…that is quite natural.
I will not loose my time (and pacience!) reading again some (incredible!) posts, on this issue, and procede to dissecate and refute them. It simply does not apeal to me, this time.
I’ll just say one thing that I think is simple and plain truth. I say who desagrees is wrong, and who doubts, please read carefully all the rules (and think).
In blitz, even if an arbiter is watching the game, you simply CAN NOT claim a draw (other than the trivial “claims” that even a spectator can claim
— stalemate, insuficient material, both flags fallen, draw by agreement).
In fact, formaly you CAN claim 50 moves rule or triple repetition or no opponent’s effort in winning by normal means, or anything else. But all of these should IN BLITZ deserve just one thing: A penalty for the smart claimant! And even if one arbiter witnesses (or can easily verify) triple repetition or 50 moves rule (or one the others), he MUST NOT intervene other than to do that punishment to the eventual claimant.
Wrong? Bold, at least? No, I’m simply sure of that.
Ah! And the Ivanchuk x Carlsen game case is even worse! Other then knowing what I just wrote in my previous post, Ivanchuk knows even better that not even in classic time controls his comment (”question”) would make any little sense.
He’s a nice and gay person, and the meaning of his “question” can only be the one I mentioned on the very first post.
Maybe he’d proposed a draw if the colours were reversed (and I refuse to play the first white move, if the opponent has not arrived), but this kind of things don’t make rules. It would never be “impolite” of Carlsen to try to win that. Let alone any “claim” rights, even if 50 moves had passed!
Get a life
@christos (greece):
You were right to be suspicious, as it was actually Korchnoi who got confused about the castling rules (see for example: http://chessvault.com/2006/04/29/victor-korchnoi-at-the-chess-bridge/ or just google ‘Korchnoi castling rule’).
However, my point is still valid: Just because someone is a brilliant chess player it doesn’t mean – as Castro assumes – that he knows all the rules.
@Castro:
Congratulations on your fatherhood – hope everything went well!
According to the present FIDE rules, in blitz play, a player can’t claim a draw based on article 10.2 (opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means). Look at the appendices of the Handbook under C Blitz play; 10.2 is specifically excluded. But no mention is made about art. 9.3 (’50 moves rule’).
So, when it is possible in a blitz game to prove both made 50 moves without captures or playing pawns (9.3b), you can claim a draw. In most blitz tournaments it will normally be impossible to prove this, but when moves are for instance automatically recorded (as in Le??n), it is.
As I stated before (the ‘Socko case’ at the women’s WC), the problem is you can’t compare blitz games in blitz tournaments with blitz deciding games in normal tournaments.
And, FIDE has come to this conclusion too; from July 1st 2009 on there will be a distinction in the rules between blitz games with or without ‘adequate supervision’. Quote: ‘B2 Where there is adequate supervision of play, (one arbiter for one game) the Competition Rules [...] shall apply’. See Gijssen’s columns on chesscafe.com (archives, Jan. and Feb. 2009).
@Jens Kristiansen
Education needed? Wrong door.
@Thorn
Thanks! She’s undecided to come out to this hard world yet!
@Frits Fritschy
You’re parcialy right, and I realy was parcialy wrong. I apologise and explain:
Of course 10.2 is not aplyable to blitz. So, here you agree with me.
I knew that the aplication of 9.2 and 9.3 to blitz was tricky, and not only in practical terms, but I confused both things in my memory. It turned out that I too, had to read again the rules!
As for the “tournament or not”:
I understand what you mean, but maybe we should try to uniformize “blitz games in blitz tournaments with blitz deciding games in normal tournaments”, at least because we players tend to get habits, and I say it is even desirable that we do, it’s less confusing, no?
The problem is related to two things: The player must “have the move”, when claiming, and the “triple position” or the “last 50 moves…” must be there, on the board, already, otherwise (if it is your next move which will create the draw situation) the rules would force you to “write the move on the scoresheet” and then claim, a thing absurd in blitz.
So, I was wrong, because there are posible claims, the practical monster being the “only” thing avoiding it. (this pratical monster is responsible for the actual 0% of good, viable and proceded claims until now, as far as I know).
Many times the claims would be not on the 50-50 moves, but on the 50-51, at least (and the triple repetition being the 2nd instance of it).
As a consequence, there are games where the draw instance is there and you can not claim it, even if you have the move. And that situation may come and go, and you never get to have a right to claim! That is one crutial difference against classic-time chess.
But yes, I was wrong and in fact IT CAN BE posible to claim 50-moves rule (and triple repetition) in blitz!
Sorry, the paragraph «As for the “tournament or not”» was meant to come in the end!
@Thorn
Out now! Hello world! 3,5 Kg of beauty!!!