Reports | August 16, 2009 2:41

Jermuk R6: Aronian and Kasimdzhanov join Leko & Ivanchuk in the lead

Jermuk GPAfter the rest day the Jermuk Grand Prix resumed Saturday with the sixth round, in which Aronian struck back with a win against Gelfand. He joined Leko and Ivanchuk (who was about to lose against Kamsky when he claimed the draw due to the 50-move rule) back in the lead and Kasimdzhanov, who beat Inarkiev, is suddenly on shared first as well. Full report.

The 5th tournament in the FIDE Grand Prix Series takes place in Jermuk, Armenia. It's a 14-player round-robin with Aronian, Jakovenko, Leko, Gelfand, Bacrot, Kamsky, Karjakin, Eljanov, Alekseev, Akopian, Ivanchuk, Cheparinov, Inarkiev and Kasimdzhanov. More info on the GP and Jermuk in our preview.

Round 6

From the pictures on the tournament website and my experience at three Grand Prix events it looks like the tournament in Jermuk is the best so far, as far as playing conditions are concerned. The playing hall with the view ouside looks absolutely beautiful, and perhaps this is inspiring for the players since the chess has been great so far as well.

Jermuk GP

The hotel's brand new pool, enjoyed by the participants in off-hours

Did it happen before in a GP that all seven games lasted longer than 50 moves? Or ever, in a tournament? The sixth round had three decisive games, a NB vs king alone, a Rp vs R ending and a game that finished in a draw despite the fact that Black delivers mate in twelve in the final position!

Ivanchuk had played an amazing queen sacrifice for just two minor pieces against Kamsky, and with his active minor pieces he did manage to eat up almost all black pawns. After giving another two pieces for a rook, eventually the interesting ending of rook, bishop, f2 and e3 vs queen and bishop arose on move 64. Is it a win or is it a draw? In any case, Kamsky reached a winning position at move 114 when Ivanchuk had to give his rook to prevent immediate mate.

Then, for a while the live transmission showed this position, and after about twenty minutes '1/2' appeared! As it turned out Ivanchuk had claimed a draw because the last capture or pawn move had been fifty, exactly fifty moves before!

9.3 of the FIDE Laws of Chess says

9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:

a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in thelast50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each playerwithout the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

From this we understand that Ivanchuk could either write down the move first and claim by telling the arbiter his intention, or simply play the move Rd4 and then claim, like he probably did. (The first option seems a bit strange these days since normally one is not allowed to write down the move before playing it.)

Update 19:22: the observations of Dutch international arbiter Aart Strik: "I noticed that during the game, at some point the clock times disappeared (showing 'nha' instead) and they later returned again, before the end of the game. Then the 114th move of both players came on the board, and then the one of Kamsky disappeared again. It's possible that the claim had been issued and mentally accepted at that point, and that the gentlemen (one with a sigh of relief, the other terribly disappointed) then played a number of forced moves on the board before the arbiter set the result. The commentary on the tournament website isn't clear either: 'the arbiters were alerted' can also mean that they acted themselves. But I don't think that is what happened.

It's difficult to find out what really happened from such a distance but in any case, formally a player does need to claim before executing the move. It's useful to cite article 8.1:

8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.
It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.

To conclude, my impresson is that Ivanchuk's last move is shown to demonstrate that indeed the 50 moves were reached."

Jermuk GP

A narrow escape for Ivanchuk against Kamsky

With 89 moves Alekseev-Cheparinov could easily have been the longest game of the round too. In a Classical Scheveningen Alekseev had made the surprising decision to exchange queens, where it's believed that White's chances lie in a kingside attack. However, after some inaccuracies by Cheparinov White quickly got a clear advantage, won material, won more material and then Cheparinov let Alekseev prove what we all know: for 2700 players mating with bishop and knight is child's play.

Jermuk GP

Alekseev passes the test: mating with B&N, against Cheparinov

So we know that tournament leader Ivanchuk drew - so did co-leader Leko, against Bacrot. Two players joined them in the lead: Aronian struck back from his loss by grinding down Gelfand in a rook ending that should have been a draw after e.g. 53...Kf6, while Kasimdzhanov won his second game in a row, this time against Inarkiev, for whom things get worse and worse.

Jermuk GP

Aronian repaired the damage after the rest day against Gelfand

Jermuk GP

Inarkiev can still smile; Kasimdzhanov shared first now

Both Jakovenko-Karjakin and Akopian-Eljanov were highly interesting draws but I'm lacking the time to go into those games more deeply. All in all, another great round in what so far is a very good tournament!

Round 6 games

Game viewer by ChessTempo

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Round 6 Standings


Jermuk Grand Prix 2009

Jermuk Grand Prix 2009 | Schedule & results

All photos © Arman Kharakhanyan

Links

Share |
Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

CAL|Daniel's picture

Thomas that is incorrect rule by the arbiter as in blitz board mate overrules flag claims.

me's picture

The draw claim is wrong!

BOTH players need to make 50 moves without capture or pawn moves before draw can be claimed. Kamsky only made 49 moves since the last capture! His 50th move (114...Bxd4) resets the move counter!!!

In fact 114...Bxd4 was transmited, then several minutes passed (probably discussions between players and arbiters) before the game was declared drawn.

Kamsky should have won this!

Thomas's picture

I think you are wrong, and the arbiter is right. As I am not 100% reliable when it comes to simple math :) I counted black's moves manually. 64.-Be5 was the first one, 63.-Qh7 the 50th one.
BTW, could Ivanchuk claim a draw with _any_ move, even if it allows 114.-Qh2mate? Or what happens if Kamsky quickly plays the mating move while his opponent is claiming the draw?

Swordman's picture

114…Bxd4 was 51 move from Kamsky. Learh mathematik :)

me's picture

Oups, you are right. I can't count :)

Ivanchuk had to write down his 114th move, summoned the arbiter and claiming the draw. If he actually played it, then he can't claim it anymore ;)

Hmm, perhaps this is then what happened. Something strange was definatelly going on. 114...Bxd4 was transmited and then several minutes elapsed before game was declared drawn. Maybe Ivanchuk executed 114.Rd4 on the board and then claimed, which is wrong.

Castro's picture

The claim is good, but only if it was done before actualy playing 114. Re4+.
The live transmision eventualy showed 114. ... Rxe4 which, if legal (game not over before), would reset the counter.
But unfortunatly it must have been recorded automaticaly, as Kamsky played it after the arbiter intervened.
Poor poor Gata!

Castro's picture

Thomas,

The answer is yes, he could claim a draw with (before!) a move that allows mate in one.
The 2nd question is wrongly posed, as we know the claim must be BEFORE the (allowing mate) move. And so, the game is over at that moment, and Ivanchuk's move needs not even to be actualy played. But even if it is, the opponent's next move (even if mate) simply doesn't exist!
And BTW, "manualy"?? LOL

Pedro A Tonelli's picture

Uau, today's round could be used in a course on basic principles of chess. Not only the fifty move rule was explained, but Cheparinov plays till the end (minus four moves) the BN mate. Inarkiev plays until a diagram in my capablancas book shows up, and even Gelfand tested Aronians basic skills in a final R vs P!

Thomas's picture

Yes, as the moves 114.Rd4+ and, initially, 114.-Bd4: were transmitted, they must have appeared on the board. Then it may well be that Ivanchuk claimed the draw, but in an incorrect way (hence rendering his claim invalid), and - even now - Kamsky could file a protest.
I was not aware of the exact wording of the rule, maybe Ivanchuk wasn't either!!??

BTW, my question was 'motivated' by an incident I once had in a blitz tournament. I executed a mating move, and my opponent "defended" by claiming flag fall. The arbiter declared the game lost for me, which in the end cost me some (~50€) prize money.

Arne Moll's picture

Excellent round again! What a fine tournament so far.

Castro's picture

I'm somewhat outdated, but I think that in blitz, if the arbiter is presented with a mated king and a flag fall from the player mating, the result is a draw. He cannot give a win to any of the players, because of two different but both imposing reasons. So it looks like you have been robbed (though maybe not the whole 50€). :-)

The claim from Ivanchuk must have been regular (before actualy playing 114.Rd4+). (And both moves 114 done merely on formal and informal way)Otherwise, it would be a scandall, but you could be wrong in that Kamsky could even now protest and be granted. Usualy, the player has a limited time to apeal (1 hour).

Zenman's picture

Quelle finale entre Vassily vs Kamsky !!

Ben's picture

Looks like a new 50-move rule went into effect - when was the last time seven or more top tier games of one round all went past 50 moves? Bravo!

Sergio's picture

What is the verdict of the position before Rd4+? (Because i think Rd4+ was just played since it doesn't mather what move he does if it is his 50th move, although he can't capture anything.)

It still seemed hard for Kamsky to break through the defence.

Thomas's picture

"What is the verdict of the position before Rd4+?"
Sergio, you are a genius if you find another move that saves the rook AND does not allow Qh2mate .... the only one I can find (Rf4-g2) is not only ugly looking but also illegal.

Sergio's picture

Thomas Chucky found a move. But i see your point. But i was thinking what the tablebases saying of this position like at the start of the 50 move sequence. (maybe i should put that more clearly then just before the drawing move.)

Thomas's picture

Ah you mean the position after, for example, move 64? No idea, and - to my knowledge - tablebases don't help. They were compiled for up to six pieces, this position has eight.
But, as various sources (e.g. Dennis Monokroussos on Chessmind) have pointed out, Kamsky had missed a win just before. He could have played 61.-Bg3: 62.fg3: Qa2, regaining the piece. This is similar, but not the same as the game continuation. Maybe Kamsky missed that 62.Re4 does not work because of 62.-Qa1+ 63.Kg2 Qa8 pinning the rook? [And it isn't clear - to me - if the previous moves, leaving the white rook and bishop separated from each other and unprotected, had been forced.]
"DM" also gives a long analysis after move 70, all the way to 141.-Qe8# IF white makes a non-obvious mistake at move 72 (no 50-move rule here, because along the way black wins white's pawns).

Thomas's picture

@Peter Doggers: What about Article 9.4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess?
"9.4 If the player touches a piece as in Article 4.3 without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move."

It seems that Ivanchuk must have touched his rook to play 114.Rd4 - strictly spoken, losing the right to claim a draw!? And apparently 114.-Bd4: was also played, as it appeared in the live transmission (actually it is still given in Tigran Petrosian's live commentary).
All this might at least explain why it took 20 minutes before "1/2" appeared - it wouldn't take that long to verify that 50 moves were played without capture or pawn movement.

Peter Doggers's picture

The observations of Dutch international arbiter Aart Strik: “I noticed that during the game, at some point the clock times disappeared (showing ‘nha’ instead) and they later returned again, before the end of the game. Then the 114th move of both players came on the board, and then the one of Kamsky disappeared again. It’s possible that the claim had been issued and mentally accepted at that point, and that the gentlemen (one with a sigh of relief, the other terribly disappointed) then played a number of forced moves on the board before the arbiter set the result. The commentary on the tournament website isn’t clear either: ‘the arbiters were alerted’ can also mean that they acted themselves. But I don’t think that is what happened.

It’s difficult to find out what really happened from such a distance but in any case, formally a player does need to claim before executing the move. It’s useful to cite article 8.1:

8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibily as possible, in the algebraic notation (See Appendix C), on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.
It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2, or 9.3 or adjourning a game according to the Guidelines of Adjourned Games point 1.a.

To conclude, my impresson is that Ivanchuk’s last move is shown to demonstrate that indeed the 50 moves were reached.”

V's picture

Arne, what about Round 7, huh? What a bloody Sunday? Just one draw.

Castro's picture

The claim must have been legal (114. Rd4+ written in advance, etc.). Only after that a piece was touched.

The moves 114 appeared in the live transmission were made on the board, but only as demonstration, and AFTER the draw. Black move 114 doesn't even exist.

Ivanchuk could choose ANY move without moving pawns or capturing. Even if creating a mate-in-one position against himself. It would be a draw anyway.

The sanction for writting in advance (before an ordinary move) is something like the one to, say, disturbing the opponent: Warning... minutes on the clock... lost game.

Thomas's picture

Wow, a familiar name (Aart Strik) on this forum ... :) . I think the arbiters wouldn't even have the right to intervene by themselves - even if at another occasion arbiters had intervened because two players had blitzed out a ninefold(!) move repetition. Nor could anyone else but Ivanchuk (or Kamsky, but somehow I don't think it was him) alert the arbiters?!
BTW, another question: What would be the sanction for writing a move in advance? I think this is still fairly common among amateurs (who may not even be aware of this relatively new[?] FIDE rule). I guess arbiters could only intervene if the opponent complains, and what about (amateur) situations where this isn't even an arbiter around?

Castro's picture

CAL|Daniel,

I was aware of something alike, but I don't think it's exactly like that, because in that case you couldn't do nothing if your opponent has mate in one, but he's still thinking and his flag falls. You could claim "Flag!" and, after that but before the arbiter arrive, he could play and say "Mate!", even with people witnessing... He must play all his game in the time given, which obviously wouldn't be the case.
Anyway, I'm realy in a bad memory case...

Al's picture

Another bad managed game by Gata. Now he forgot the 50 move rule! Time to review concepts and make calls. Instead of friends, maybe real experts ?

Castro's picture

Peter:

"9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if:

a. he writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, which shall result in thelast50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or

b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each playerwithout the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

From this we understand that Ivanchuk could either write down the move first and claim by telling the arbiter his intention, or simply play the move Rd4 and then claim, like he probably did. (The first option seems a bit strange these days since normally one is not allowed to write down the move before playing it.)"

You understood wrongly! Even if it was you who posted the reasons!

First, any draw claim is only accepted if the player has the move ("by the player having the move"). Otherwise it will simply be dismissed.

Second, you say "The first option seems a bit strange these days since normally one is not allowed to write down the move before playing it."
But it isn't any odd whatsoever, as you wrote after. In order to claim a draw, you can (and must) write in advance. "It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless..."

All of us make confusions from time to time, but it's good to correct things, least others get confused.

Castro's picture

Ah, to sumarize:

So Ivanchuk realy COULDN'T "simply play the move Rd4 and then claim", and I say he most certainly DIDN'T.

Otherwise Kamsky would have an easy and won protest. Agree?

Latest articles