World Cup R3: So knocks out Kamsky

98 Responses to “World Cup R3: So knocks out Kamsky”

1. Castro on November 28th, 2009 16:35
   

   Gone Gata!!
   Go Judith! Go Shirov! Go Maxime! Go Etiene! Go So!! (As you’re at it, you may also win the thing!)
   Well, Go everybody!
2. Luis on November 28th, 2009 16:40
   

   Told you SO
3. Jo on November 28th, 2009 17:06
   

   Judit slays the Petroff ( yer think he wasn’t trying to play the Petroff) Fantastical Chess -don’t know what Fritz had to say about it – who cares. My favorite game of the decade. The only move I got was the last one.

   I remember Anand making a comment on some video along the lines of “Never allow Judit lines with her bishops coz shes a maniac.” If I remember correctly he was facing a benko gambit.

   Shirov was awesome too – bamboozling Tomashevky with his Rubik Cube. whoever said he plays like a chess tourist should stick to training kids
4. Ben on November 28th, 2009 17:08
   

   Peter,

   The boldness and score in the Shirov – Tomashevsky game are turned around. Shirov is going trough to the 4th round
5. Boybawang on November 28th, 2009 17:10
   

   I think the final position is winning for Wesley SO. Ofcourse DRAW is just what he needed to WIN here
6. Castro on November 28th, 2009 17:17
   

   Brave Judith atacked like there’s no tomorrow, risking a lot, and produced a very emotive brilancy, but Gelfand felt in panic (seemingly several times). It almost looked like a blitz game. I believe he had a won game for many moves.
7. Thomas on November 28th, 2009 17:33
   

   Kamsky fan made three predictions, let’s hope at least one of them will be completely right. The predictions were:
   1) So will not beat Kamsky – but he did (in the match)
   2) Polgar will not beat Gelfand – but she did (at least in one game)
   3) Ivanchuk will not quit professional chess forever – this one is open (and will remain so for a while)
8. Boybawang on November 28th, 2009 17:42
   

   Ivanchuk should feel better now after Kamskys defeat. You’re not alone chuky
9. Castro on November 28th, 2009 17:43
   

   @Thomas

   “Kamsky fan” was all wrong!
   Respect the master’s words! Don’t call him a lyer, saying it is “open”! The man is quiting pro, period

   I’m joking, I too wish Ivanchuk plays all future big tournaments, and yes, we know his nice but volatile and excentric nature. He could calmly ponder everything in the future, and stay “with us”.
10. Castro on November 28th, 2009 17:47
    

    Well, I hope he is NOT feeling better on that! Otherwise, he will not “be alone”, but will be “without me” on that. This is no childish business.
11. Thomas on November 28th, 2009 18:18
    

    I think what Ivanchuk needs now (and might have needed earlier) is simply a break from chess for a few months.

    While the two characters cannot be compared, there were rumors that Kramnik would retire after his match loss against Anand [though not by himself]. What he actually did was
    1) play the Olympiad (contractual obligation and/or matter of honor?)
    2) take a break – roughly half a year regarding classical games – also for personal reasons unrelated to chess
    3) come back as strong as, maybe stronger than ever

    I don’t know if Chucky should also get a wife and a family to realize that chess is not the only thing that matters …
12. ChessGirl on November 28th, 2009 18:46
    

    Thomas, Ivanchuk HAS a wife
13. jmd85146 on November 28th, 2009 19:30
    

    Nice finish by Karjakin
14. Nakamura fan on November 28th, 2009 19:35
    

    Thanks to So, Kamsky and the US are out.
15. nick burrows on November 28th, 2009 19:59
    

    You KNOW that Chucky solves problems whils making love ;O))
16. Thomas on November 28th, 2009 20:06
    

    Yes indeed Ivanchuk is married again, how could he keep it secret from me? All I knew (I guess it’s rather widely known) is that his first marriage with Alisa Galliamova failed because – her words paraphrased – “he lives completely in his own world and only thinks about chess, chess and chess”.
17. T. Goto on November 28th, 2009 20:10
    

    It was great to see Judith playing like this again! This match is of particular interest, for her opponent is the polar opposite; theoretical, correct, and positional while she is a pure tiger. So many flamboyant players are gone already, so I am personally rooting for Judith (I always like her style anyway). I am naturally happy to see Shirov doing well; he is on fire! So has been impressive indeed. And Grischuk… he is flying under the radar for the time being. Maybe he is the one everyone should watch out.
18. Alexander on November 28th, 2009 21:07
    

    So is not only impressive, but one of the favourites. By now, he had the strongest adversaries of all the contestants. Guseinov is a member of the winning Azeri team, Ivanchuk is one of the world’s top ten and an obvious favourite of this tournament, Kamsky is the winner of the last WC. It is funny that in next two rounds he’ll probaly face an easier opposition than in the earlier rounds. The only thing that could stop him is IMHO his lack of experience needed for such an event.
19. Arne Moll on November 28th, 2009 21:30
    

    Interesting to see so many Dutch Defense games all of a sudden. And 1.e4 e5 is really a must in knockout matches, isn’t it?
20. Castro on November 28th, 2009 21:37
    

    @nick burrows

    LOL

    A Kama-Sutra posicional master, is that what you mean?
21. Thomas on November 28th, 2009 21:45
    

    Of course the opening choice depends on the tournament situation … . I didn’t check earlier rounds, but today black chose the Dutch twice in a must-win situation (So-Kamsky, Vitiugov-Sakaev). And 1.e4 e5 is the choice when black is happy with a draw – either because he won game 1 or because he doesn’t mind a tiebreak?
    The first strategy failed altogether, the second had mixed success. Here I would include Navara’s Rubinstein French – also a sign that he didn’t really want to win game 2 after winning game 1?
22. Arne Moll on November 28th, 2009 22:09
    

    @Thomas, in the first round Tregubov got crushed terribly with the Dutch, and Shabalov’s Stonewall in the 2nd looked rather shaky as well. Still, a very interesting development.
23. David Korn, Seattle on November 28th, 2009 23:17
    

    Recounted to me verbally by a GM that I know quite well, asked to Ivanchuk’s first wife: ‘Were you and Vasily not GOOD together?’ ‘No, we were. That was not the problem. But with Vasily it was always chess, chess, chess, chess, and MORE chess’.
    *
    Clearly he has real interests outside of chess such as memorizing 100 Russian poems by heart, learning Turkish, what a gneius… his very human side, and needing and wanting companionship outside of chess. But chess for him is……. blessings, dk
24. Thomas on November 28th, 2009 23:55
    

    While I am not at all an expert on the Dutch, to me it seems that Tregubov’s drastic loss was related to his creative but dubious interpretation of the opening – castling long was not a good idea, at least in hindsight …. .

    Some statistics from chessgames.com:
    - Tregubov played the Dutch once before (a loss against Kramnik in 2002)
    - Kamsky: also one earlier game (win against Bacrot in 2007)
    - Shabalov: a total of 12 games, but the (2nd) latest one is from 1998
    The only top player that seems to use the Dutch as a “regular surprise weapon” is Nakamura, did this yield him an invitation to Corus?
25. Rob Schoorl on November 28th, 2009 23:59
    

    Cool game by Polgar!
26. T. Goto on November 29th, 2009 00:47
    

    Morozevich’s Stonewall worked fine at Tal memorial. BTW, did Mamedyarov stop playing Modern?
27. c2_n on November 29th, 2009 11:38
    

    Nice Wesley! The Philippines is proud of you reaching this stage. Keep it up!
28. test on November 29th, 2009 15:12
    

    From the official site: the two Chinese players Wang Yue and Li Chao were forfeited for being late.
    Or they (the organizers) insane? Problems between Russia & China?
29. Edwin on November 29th, 2009 15:46
    

    @ test

    I think not. This is a decison from the referees, not the organisation and the Fide rules are very clear.
30. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 16:31
    

    Even more: the zero tolerance rule is strictly applied at Chinese events – wasn’t Hou Yifan once forfeited for being five seconds late at the board?

    So while the Chinese players apparently submitted an appeal, they cannot reallly complain. BTW, it seems that they were late because they were smoking outside of the tournament hall (information in this paragraph is from the Chessdom live chat).
31. steven on November 29th, 2009 16:41
    

    What happens if, 2 minutes before your game, you suddenly get cramps in your stomach which obliges you to go to the toilet in a rush.
    You appear at he board 1 minute too late; does it mean you lose the game ??
32. Castro on November 29th, 2009 16:50
    

    @Steven

    Either you submited that information to the arbiters previously (if you can ) or else the answer is YES.
33. steven on November 29th, 2009 17:03
    

    So if you cannot submit the information (in the example i gave, because you fell from the stairs,….) you lose, even if you can’t help it.
    Which means this rule is stupid and discrimatory; if you take a lawyer and go to a tribunal any NEUTRAL and REAL judge (not a FIDE appeal’s committee employee) will overrule this stupid rule.
34. Castro on November 29th, 2009 17:11
    

    Of course not! There are events and there are schedules to the events. If you cannot be on time, sometimes you lose the oportunity. And that happens all the time, in lots of things and can happen to ANYONE. No discrimination!
35. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 17:12
    

    What happens if you have such an emergency _during_ a rapid or blitz game? Can you claim a timeout? I guess no, and you will probably lose on time … .

    In any case, in the given situation the urgent need to smoke probably doesn’t qualify as an emergency.
36. steven on November 29th, 2009 17:17
    

    Castro :
    i don’t know which country you live in, but in my country such a rule would easily be overruled (in the examples i just gave).
    Question is : which tribunal has the legal authority and power to handle such cases ?
37. Castro on November 29th, 2009 17:30
    

    In your country…
    Does the train come backwards to pick you, because you fell from the stairs and got late 1 minute?
    Does the artist (and his 10000 fans) wait for you to begin the performance?
    I repeat: The event has a time to begin, and a tolerance widely known. Even having an excuse to be late may not be suficient to you having the right to participate. That’s the case here.
38. Castro on November 29th, 2009 17:33
    

    Well, as Thomas noted, the case here may even not be that of having a real excuse!
39. Castro on November 29th, 2009 17:51
    

    Karjakin (2723) Vitiugov (2694)
    Laznicka (2637) Mamedyarov (2719)
    V.-Lagrave (2718) Gelfand (2758)
    Grischuk (2736) Jakovenko (2736)
    Bacrot (2700) Ponomariov (2739)
    Gashimov (2758) Caruana (2652)
    Shirov (2719) Svidler (2754)
    So (2640) Malakhov (2706)

    I’m completely rooting for the underdog now! The only match where I’m not, because I realy don’t have a preference, is Grischuk (2736) Jakovenko (2736), but (incredible coincidence!) they have the same ELO, so there’s no “underdog”.
40. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 18:11
    

    @steven

    I once went into a casino and got my eye on a certain slot machine. On the way there I tripped over one other customers leg and someone else beat me to that slot machine – and HE WON.

    Who should I sue?
41. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 18:12
    

    P.S.: Real story. Really!!!
42. test on November 29th, 2009 18:14
    

    Ok, my opinion on this: I know it is now in the FIDE rulebook.
    BUT: it is not obliged, in other words: organizers are still allowed to stipulate differently in the rules of the tournament.
    I think it is a stupid rule for a variety of reasons. There needs to be some allowed delay, 15 minutes or so, whatever. (Don’t forget that the clock IS ticking, it is just lost time for the player who arrives a few minutes late at the board.)

    I know people are gonna compare with other sports. But chess is not some other sport. For example: isn’t it a bit strange that the players can leave the board DURING the game as much as they want, but oho if they arrive one minute late: they lose the game!
43. ceann on November 29th, 2009 18:22
    

    What sort of —deleted— are Marty Feldman and the garlicy frog anyway….
    They could easily refused to take a win like this and play on a couple of minutes behind the other games. They both sicken me. Cowards and ignorant they are.
    It’s win at all cost in sport these days….very sad
44. test on November 29th, 2009 18:43
    

    Well ceann, now they are guaranteed $20.000 instead of $12.800.
    I’m not sure the players -even if the want to continue- have any say in the matter.
45. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 18:45
    

    While private organizers can make their own rules, I am not sure if there is room for tolerance regarding the zero tolerance rule at official FIDE events.

    I also don’t think that Gashimov and Bacrot even had the right or opportunity to overrule an arbiter’s decision.
46. Castro on November 29th, 2009 18:58
    

    I must say I was not there, and so maybe I’m missing something. The payers could have reason fon an apeal based on special circunstances I don’t know, but if the issue was simply arriving after the scheduled time (and eventual tolerance of 0, 1, 15, whatever minutes), then they lose the game. Simple AND FAIR.
    It was a 2nd rapid game, so they even got (I’d say obviously) a very well defined break (plus maybe some more minutes if they ended the first rapid quikly). It should be more than enough to go to toilets, smoke, chat… Even falling the stairs with minor injuries
    With the facts we know, it seems like the two players are to blame, and no one else. But… let’s wait for some more information.
47. test on November 29th, 2009 19:03
    

    >>I am not sure if there is room for tolerance regarding the zero tolerance rule at official FIDE events.
    Yes, this being an official FIDE event, that might be the case.

    Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that this is a stupid rule.
    One more instance of FIDE changing things -that didn’t need changing- for the worse.
48. steven on November 29th, 2009 20:07
    

    I remember in the last world cup Short lost a tie-break rapid game against – I forgot who – despite the fact that his opponent was +/- 20 minutes late, which means Short played rapid and his opponent blitz.
    Instead of taking his loss as a man Short, true to his character and habits, started complaining and whining in the press : he lost the game because his opponent had ” a biological advantage”, he meant some kind of adrenalin advantage. IMO he should have said to himself : “you moron, you lost to a lower
    rated player (if i’m not mistaken) who had much less time, you should play better, concentrate on the game and not on him being late” but no, he started blaming his opponent and the regulations and invented some silly theory about “biological advantage”.
    I’m not saying Short is directly responsible for this new rule, but he certainly stirred up the discussion.
    Let’s assume Short’s theory is correct : (some) players have an advantage when they have much less time.
    In that case it’s still possible to use this advantage without the risk of being forfeited : you just arrive in time, do your first move, go away for 15-20 minutes, come back and crush your opponent.
    Nobody does this, so it’s bullshit.
    Castro : comparing a (top) chess event with trains (wait 30 minutes and take the next one) or pop festivals is ludicrous and doesn’t make any sense.
    Muadhib : i don’t see the relevance of your gambling problem in this discussion, real story or not.
    The fact is that, as Test indicated, a player being late is already punished by the loss of time.
    Castro : when later the final round is decided by one player being 30 seconds late for whatever reason it may be, are you also going to shout : SIMPLE, FAIR, CORRECT,… whereas IMO and in the opinion of many other chess loving people, such an outcome would virtually destroy the tournament.
49. Ricardo on November 29th, 2009 20:19
    

    Steven: Actually I think Short was talking about the fact that after 20 minutes he was pretty much sure his opponent (I think it was Baramidze, but I’m not sure) wasn’t going to show up and his concentration vanished, as would happen to anyone (or already did, for those of us who happened to experience this kind of situation in a tournament).

    I agree Short tends to a rather vocal guy when it comes to making a statement, but if it happened to me I would be as pissed off as he was. Lack of respect, and certainly a “biological” advantage if you wanna call it that way. Whether that’s enough to balance the time factor or not… well, I don’t think it is, but Short’s claims are valid to a point. In my opinion of course.
50. test on November 29th, 2009 20:23
    

    For the record.

    Robert Fontaine:
    “Etienne gagne donc par forfait, de manière assez incroyable. On s’aperçoit maintenant du non sens total de ce règlement qui veut que le joueur soit assis à la seconde où la partie démarre.”

    Roughly translated: “So Etienne wins by forfeit, in a way that’s hard to believe. We now become aware of the total nonsense of this rule that wants the player to be sitting at the board at the exact second the game starts.”
51. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 20:32
    

    Short (2649 at the time) lost against Baramidze (2569), a then 19-year old German player born in Tbilisi, Georgia. I agree that his opponent being that late could have disturbed Short’s concentration, and such behavior might be considered rude – as far as I remember Baramidze simply overslept and it clearly wasn’t done on purpose. Of course Short still should have taken his loss like a man/should have lost in dignity.

    Concerning your remarks on Castro’s comments:
    - There are also international trains that run only every few hours, or even just once every day … .
    - If the final is decided by forfeit I would, first and foremost, blame the losing player (unless he has a REALLY good reason for being late). Maybe it is even good news that such incidents happened today rather than in the very decisive phase of the tournament?
52. steven on November 29th, 2009 20:36
    

    Ricardo : but surely Short is a professional and he must be able to keep concentrated for 20 minutes or so.
    I myself never (until now) came too late for a game, but although i only play chess for three years, my opponents did already quite a few times.
    So be it … I just waited and kept concentrated…never made a fuss about it.
    I played already against a player who drunk one can of beer after another and smelled horribly of alcohol or against someone who smelled like a public toilet which hasn’t been cleaned for a year…that’s life.
    One should always seek explanations for losses inside oneself and not go the
    Short/Mamedyarov/Topalov way.
53. Nakamura fan on November 29th, 2009 20:37
    

    So much for the Chinese taking over, they’re all gone. There’s much talk about So being Top 10 someday. It’s more likely that the Top 10 will consist of young top rated players such as Carlsen, Aronian, Gashimov, Radjabov, Ponomariov, Grischuk, Jakovenko, Yue Wang, Eljanov, Karjakin, Mamedyarov, Dominguez Perez, Vachier-lagrave, Nakamura, Alekseev, Vallejo Pons, Tomashevsky, Hao Wang, Navara, Malakhov, and Bacrot. If So becomes #11 in the world with a rating of 2749, will he be a failure and am I anti-So for even suggesting the possibility? Obviously not.
54. steven on November 29th, 2009 20:57
    

    Thomas :
    I live in a small overcrowded country (Belgium) where there are trains in peak hours even every 15 or 20 minutes, but i agree, in countries like Australia or Russia it would probably be a little bit more annoying to miss the train.
    (unless if it would have been the Sint-Petersburg – Moscow train where Chechen or other tourists forget or drop their bombs along the rails…)
    You would blame the losing player if the final gets decided by forfeit, I would blame FIDE but this doesn’t change the fact that the tournament would kinda of
    be destroyed by 30 or 60 seconds or a few minutes…
    It would be preferable to make this outcome impossible by skipping this rule.
55. Castro on November 29th, 2009 21:14
    

    @steven

    What realy is “ludicrous and doesn’t make any sense” is your aproach to this.
    Some of us tried to answer, but it realy was ridiculous calling lawyers, courts of law, discrimination, countries one lives in, etc. for something that is — as far as we know — a mere absense to a strictly scheduled obligation, with it’s exact consequences. And so, people could just laugh, instead of answering you.
    Illegal is something that rule is not.
    What you could do (and some of us do) is not agreing with that rule, and wanting other one.
    BTW, if such a thing happened in the last decisive game of the final, as you asked me, I’d agree that in some soft sense “such an outcome would virtually destroy the tournament”. I wouldn’t say virtually, or I wouldn’t say destroy.
    The tournament would end and with a deserving winner, but I agree it would be a little scandall (or not, if it were an accident), but every inconvenient should be adressed to the other player’s absence — whatever caused it!
    Repeat: yes, simple, FAIR (and can add your CORRECT too).
    You’re now descending to a 30 secons example. Would you end up asking what if I’m the arbiter and the player sitted one second after the time? Everybody uses some tolerances, some written and some unwriten.
    In Kanty-Masiysk they forfeited 2 players, presumely for the “good” reasons.
    Try to come to Earth (on time)
56. Castro on November 29th, 2009 21:27
    

    @test

    I saw that words of Robert Fontaine, on EE site.
    Yes, he is showing disagreament with a rule (And I disagree with him, specially because he exagerates). He’s on his right, but he knows that — being the rule — they’d aply it on him too, he wouldn’t expect otherwise (let alone being “illegal”).
    I lost one game because of the cell phone rule, and I’m one of it’s oposers!
    But what could I do? And the game was completely won for me! I had to accept.
    Some day I may quit playing some chess competitions, because incresingly there are new rules I think kill chess as I love it (forbiding draws is one of them), but until then… I have to accept the rules.
57. steven on November 29th, 2009 21:37
    

    Castro :

    My friend, you’re becoming a little bit emotional, the quality of your english is rapidly decreasing, some of your statements are difficult to decipher.
    My guess is that you live in a non-democratic country where people tremble
    and bow for the LAW and the RULES, not because they improve society and the quality of life, but because the LAW and the RULES are dictated by the almighty
    ruler or state. Granted, they often don’t have the choice.
    I think my arguments do make sense, more than yours in any case.
58. Bert de Bruut on November 29th, 2009 21:44
    

    LOL @ Jo’s comment 5:06 pm, especially the line “whoever said [Shirov] plays like a chess tourist should stick to training kids” HAHA!
59. Arne Moll on November 29th, 2009 22:04
    

    Castro, there are rules and there are rules. Everyone knows that and everybody lives by that. As a pedestrian, you don’t wait for a red light if there is no traffic around. That’s just silly. We’re all reasonable human beings, not robots.

    Of course people should in general stick to the rules but FIDE has really been pushing it lately. Who gives these arbiters the right to forfeit world class players as if they’re schoolboys? Surely at such an event, so important for sponsors and what not, and with so much money at stake, something reasonable could be arranged? Like a penalty, or a warning, or whatever. But no, not with FIDE.
    What if Usain Bolt arrives late for the 100m final of the Olympic games, will he be forfeited? Would you really like that? Of course not – he’s the star of the entire event. We’re all thrilled to see him. The rest will just have a wait until he arrives. Unfair? Perhaps, but sometimes being fair is even more silly than being unfair.
60. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 22:24
    

    I remember that Nigel Short once got fined for ignoring a red traffic light as a pedestrian (by a Dutch policeman? not sure about that …). His puzzled reaction was something like “I am now living in Greece, where traffic signs are merely considered as a recommendation”.

    With all due respect to Li Chao and Wang Yue, they do not have quite the same status as Usain Bolt … . And what would/what should happen if Usain Bolt produces a false start?

    In chess, another (arguably controversial) role relates to mobile phones: The first high-profile victim of the then rather new rule was Ponomariov, FIDE world champion at the time … .
61. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 22:25
    

    http://ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_18.htm

    Wang Yue says: “Yes, this was correct and fair decision. The only decision that could be taken.”

    Case closed.
62. steven on November 29th, 2009 22:34
    

    Not case closed.
    I respect the Chinese players and the calm and noble way they accept the decision.
    But it is not about individual cases and reactions.
    It’s about the future and the fact that this very strict rule can cripple important games and tournaments.
63. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 22:44
    

    It is not PROFESSIONAL to be late. And these are PROFESSIONAL chess players and professional chess tournaments we are talking about. The rule is just fine and Chinese accepted it like they should – PROFESSIONALLY.

    The old “one hour late” rule was simply ridicoluous. All that talking about quality of life and such things is just crap. If the game is set to start at 15:40 then it should start at 15:40 unless there is a very good reason not to.

    I play on amateur level in totally unimportant tournaments and noone makes a fuss when someone is late or if his cell phone makes a sound. But these are professionals we are talking about here. Thats a whole different level, where rules must be strict. Otherwise it’s just kaos.
64. Thomas on November 29th, 2009 22:46
    

    While we are at it: There is also a rather light-hearted interview with Erwin l’Ami:
    http://ugra-chess.ru/eng/interv_17.htm

    “Do you think that you could become an idol for younger Dutch chess generation?”
    “The fact that I was knocked out in Round 1 obviously will not help me in this. “
65. steven on November 29th, 2009 22:46
    

    “- I did not understand what happened, – says Wang Yue. But he also added: – Ok, these are the rules, I cannot break them. I was shocked . It seemed that the world has stopped”

    By the way : correct decision given the actual rules.
    He didn’t elaborate whether he thinks it’s a good rule yes or no.
    Rules are not sacred and can be changed and sooner or later this rule will be changed.
66. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 22:47
    

    P.S.: Everybody knows the rules in advance, and the penalty that applies if you brake them.
67. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 22:50
    

    Thats a whole different story, but I never heard chess players opposing that rule. They only oppose it when they brake it!!! Things don’t work this way. You can’t be quiet and only disaprove when you already broke the rule and were penalised.
68. steven on November 29th, 2009 22:53
    

    “All that talking about quality of life and such things is just crap. ”

    I was not talking about chess when i talked about “quality of life”,
    but about politics and society in general.
    I was elaborating a little bit.
    Learn to read, man.
69. Ricardo on November 29th, 2009 22:55
    

    Steve: They are not “accepting a decision”, it’s a rule imposed by FIDE that’s being applied in a FIDE tournament. You would think the players would know better than idle around until the game started, and according to Muadhib’s quote, they did.

    So instead of complaining for something that’s obvious in so many sports/events/call-it-whatever-you-want, next time make sure you’re sitting down 5 minutes before the game starts.

    Arne: I’m afraid I can’t agree this time. You seem to imply that some people should be treated differently because of their quality (ELO?). We’re all chess players, we all have our license. Being a 2700 player doesn’t mean you don’t have to wait for the red light. It is a shame they were forfeited but it was something that could have been avoided easily.
70. Muadhib on November 29th, 2009 22:59
    

    I already had such a discussion before with a guy who claimed that not being there on time somehow improved his quality of life

    Complete rubbish.

    Let me reformulate my last post:
    Chess players only oppose the rules AFTER they get penalised for breaking it. But not BEFORE. So it seems like they are OK with the rule, but this of course changes when they get penalised by that same rule. So the rule is only bad when they get caught!
71. steven on November 29th, 2009 23:02
    

    Arne: I’m afraid I can’t agree this time. You seem to imply that some people should be treated differently because of their quality (ELO?). We’re all chess players, we all have our license. Being a 2700 player doesn’t mean you don’t have to wait for the red light. It is a shame they were forfeited but it was something that could have been avoided easily

    BUT pros and amateurs are treated differently.
    In amateur tournaments, also when FIDE Elo-points are at stake, people are
    too late regularly.
    Are we also going to forfeit those amateurs in the future ?
72. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:09
    

    @steven

    The more you say the more one sees how wrong you are. I’m not very emotional while saying this!
    You’re avoiding it, but in this matter is stoping and thinking again what you need, not trying to avoid matters by focusing on the bad english of someone else (I assume it, my english is BAD!) or guesses about non-democratic countries.
    Just go back to your first posts and compare with what you’re saying on later posts. It’s obvious you took this event by the wrong end (not in an OPINION about a rule, of course, that’s beyond writeness), you just couldn’t stop. It’s ok you used me on that process, but realy ok is you stopping, mainly because it’s just you who gets fooled.
    Hope my english sufices this time.
73. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:11
    

    *rightness (not “writeness”)

    (my English!)
74. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:27
    

    @Arne

    More important than the obvious “there are rules and there are rules” is telling what is from what should be. Ok, those are facts, the pedestrian thing and everything. And — as I made clear — there are many kinds of tolerances on the various kinds of rules.
    But other than those obvious points, I think you’re missing the point!
    Of course if Usain Bolt arrives late for the 100m final of the Olympic games, he will he be forfeited!! Depending of what is late by the rules, and what is the tolerance, if any, sure, but be sure he will!
    And when those things doesn’t happen to an Usain Bolt but happen to some other athlete THERE is where we have an injustice. You’re right in saying that these injustices happen, but that is not the point in this discusion.
    There isn’t even a need, like Thomas did, do try a comparison of these two chinese GMs to Usain Bolt. Nothing of that is the point here, I think.
75. test on November 29th, 2009 23:38
    

    That interview with Wang Yue is just brilliant.

    - How happened that you missed the start of the game?

    - I don’t know what happened, – replies disappointed Wang Yue. – We were smoking with Li Chao and some fellow told us: “Guys, I think you are late for your game”. Of course we rushed into the playing hall . But it was already too late .

    Most of all I feel pity for Li Chao: he started smoking here, in Khanty to join my smoking company.

    - Perhaps now it is a good reason to quit smoking? Less chances to get into a trouble and more chances to be healthy.

    - I don’t think so… After such a shock you only think to take a long smoke!
76. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:39
    

    Who knows the name of that famous (and brilliant) yuguslav GM from the 70’s who once, in the heat of the battle, wanted to take back a move he made on the grounds that “In my career I made enough brilliant moves to be allowed now to correct just this one”?
    He even got the nickname J’Adoubovic
    One is tempted to sympatise!
    Why not granting him that?
    Well, let’s say… because!
77. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:46
    

    @Bert de Bruut

    Yes, that Jo’s comment is just brilliant!

    “Whoever said [Shirov] plays like a chess tourist should stick to training kids”

    One of the best replies to a nonsense, ever!
78. test on November 29th, 2009 23:46
    

    Google says it’s Milan Matulovic.
79. Castro on November 29th, 2009 23:50
    

    Well done, test!!
    Big BIG name in the 70’s chess!
    Thanks
80. steven on November 30th, 2009 00:52
    

    Castro :

    It is impossible to communicate with someone who is not able to write nor, which is even more important, think in a coherent way.
    My posts on the contrary are coherent, i didn’t change my point of view.
    The rule sucks; pros and amateurs should be treated the same way
    (Neither ot them should be forfeited when being late) because it harms tournaments and chess in general.
    So the rule should be abolished.
    Understood or is it really too difficult for you ?
81. ChessGirl on November 30th, 2009 01:24
    

    What happens if both players are late?
82. steven on November 30th, 2009 01:49
    

    I suppose the game will have no result (which amounts to a draw) and the match will be decided in the other game(s) (classic-rapid-blitz).
83. Castro on November 30th, 2009 02:17
    

    @ChessGirl

    Yes, the answer is exactly the obvious simplest one: Both loose. 0-0 is a legitime result, and happens now and then.

    @steven

    Ok, my last post adressing your sayings. THAT you get from me.

    “It is impossible to communicate with someone who is not able to write nor, which is even more important, think in a coherent way”

    Very well put, and in an English much better than any I could try.
    If you don’t understand what I write, because I’m “not able to write”, it’s nothing but natural and coherent from you to pretend to understand, and even to answer.
    You show yourself a monster of coherence indeed.
    (or else of agression, but then again, you wouldn’t be that bad on yourself).

    So, more than “understood” why I will not insist in that “impossible communication”. At least one thing right you got, today.

    Also “understood” (and I think lots of posts ago) is the simple check I told you one can do to your posts, and see who is right about you not only being coherent (or not!) on the matter of those forfeits, but also on what you say, repeat, cease to repeat, ask, focus and/or show interess, on the same matter.
    And all this REGARDLESS of OPINIONS on the rule!
    You not having that understood, or even trying that opinions about the rule turn out to be the problem in discusion, is something my English is hardly to blame.

    If it was enough to say “I’m coherent” even with evidences available, even the courts of law (upon which you so surely relyed — or were just those from “your country”?) would become useless!
    Capisce? If not, OK, sorry. Cheers!
84. steven on November 30th, 2009 02:33
    

    I admit : i have underestimated you.
    After your last post i understand you’re not able to understand messages which are only slightly more complicated than sentences as for instance :
    “Who will win tomorrow?” Who is your favourite player ?”
    “X will be world champion !” or “What was the name of that player…?”
    I feel pity for you because your writings other than those easy sentences i
    just mentioned are devoid of any sense.
85. Castro on November 30th, 2009 02:51
    

    (One non-coherence from me now)
    Oh well, luckyly I didn’t “underestimate you”.
    And luckyly (this is misspelled, right?) there are people here who understand (and find good sense on) my simple and not-so-simple (though always bad) English.

    As for you feeling pity: No use to tell me your feelings. You feel that. Now do with that feeling whatever pleases you more.
    I’d say “quit”, as other things you maybe should quit, but we agreed on “comunication impossible”, and I’m being too incoherent already on that.
    Hey! Look! A balloon! There!
86. Nakamura fan on November 30th, 2009 04:19
    

    Vitiugov, Nikita (RUS) is #36 and 2700.5 in the live ratings.
87. WGIFM on November 30th, 2009 05:33
    

    @steven
    Obviously “Castro” makes much more efforts to transmit his ideas than you. Therefore it was just pointless to blame his languages skills.

    @debate
    I think this rule does not say that one has to show up at the very moment when the game is scheduled to start. The players has the right to be there before, and take their seats.

    So allowing a 20 minutes delay is nothing more than changing the origo of the time of showing up.
    Arguments on possible vis-major’s and other special cases may be the object of later debates, or might/should be decided by chief arbiters, but on the whole I do not think anything is wrong with this “strict” rule.
    It is not that strict indeed. One finds a lot of strict rules in chess. This is just one new of them.
88. Arne Moll on November 30th, 2009 08:20
    

    Castro, of course there will be injustices. That’s life. What’s so bad about small injustices if it’s in the interest of everyone (who benefits from two great players being knocked out of the tournament?) You see, this is the point. Rules should have a clear PURPOSE. Rules for kicking players out because it’s somehow ‘impolite’ or whatever to be a few minutes late, do more harm than good in my opinion. Perhaps it’s impolite, yes, but think of the amount of preparation time and energy wasted because of such trifles!
    And yes, this should be decided rule by rule, not in general. Again: with reason this is not so difficult to establish as you might think. But now, silly rules are being invented and they cannot be questioned at all unless by protesting against them. And when someone does (silently) protest against them, or ignore them, people say the person shouldn’t complain because ‘the rules are the rules’. And there’s a hole in my bucket…
89. test on November 30th, 2009 09:17
    

    This picture from round three says it all (sarcastically):
    http://ugra-chess.ru/gal/29.11.2009/album/slides/_DSC6697.jpg

    Only 2 players are already sitting at the board.
    Officials looking at them conspiratorially…
90. Bert de Bruut on November 30th, 2009 10:21
    

    @ Muadhib: “The old “one hour late” rule was simply ridicoluous. All that talking about quality of life and such things is just crap. If the game is set to start at 15:40 then it should start at 15:40 unless there is a very good reason not to.”

    One pushes the clock and the game starts. Who cares the opponent is unable to directly answer, because he is still away fetching coffee? Award a win by default for that? FIDE-logic and FIDE-justice.
91. Muadhib on November 30th, 2009 12:12
    

    The game starts with a handshake! If one of the opponents is not there, then how can the game start?

    OK, lets say that there would be 5 minute tolerance ( a palyer can be 5 minutes late). What do you do when someone comes 5 minutes and 23 seconds late? That person should be forfeited because of those 23 seconds, right? If not, where is the limit?

    And we are back at the beginning. It’s the same thing if there is a zero tolerance and someone comes 23 seconds late, or if there is a 5 minute tolerance and somebody comes 5 minutes and 23 seconds late. Completely the SAME thing. That person is going to get forfeited for those 23 seconds. And there would be ragging debates about stupid ruile that got him forfeited because of those 23 seconds.

    The rule is just fine. Players weren’t in the playing hall when they should have been. Period.

    My opinion on interpretattion of this rule in Hou Yifan’s case was a little bit different, because she was there in the playing hall, she just wasn’t sitting at the table. That decision to forfeit her was not in the spirit of the rules, but in this case it was perfectly OK.
92. Castro on November 30th, 2009 17:52
    

    @Arne

    OK, you (like many other) don’t like the rule. BTW, one should distinguish between wanting some tolerance (one hour was the standard ’til recenly) and no limit at all, supposedly letting the chess clock be the only ruler on time, for the game. (On this last case, it seems there still is some incoherence, and people should also be against that rulling!).
    The most dificult point in discusion here wasn’t exactly that, but OK, I too have an opinion.
    As you rightly pointed, there is a question of “politeness” (and rightness, I’d say) in being on time (or not) to a scheduled event.
    For instance, I say one player having arrived to his game should NEVER be harmed in any way by the absense of his opponent. Even if he is playing White, he should never have the onus of making a move in order to have his absent opponent’s clock running. EVER! (That’s a rule I’m against to).
    As for the “new” rule itself: It is only new in establishing some different tolerances. It is not a hour anymore and, in FIDE tournaments, it is zero tolerance.
    My opinion is that it is OK.
    First, it allows tournament organizations to put a tolerance they find suitable, the main thing being everybody knows it and everybody entering the tournament ACCEPTS it. And 2nd, even when the tolerance is “zero”, all you have to do is REALY try to be on time — even being some time before, if needed! Just like when catching a train or a plain. I lost games for far more stupid rules! This one is gold, for me, in comparison.
    This rule was not one of the most needed changes, but Well done, FIDE. (Though the “old” rule was acceptable too. It just had the guillotine exactly established at one hour. The “new” rule simply grants more freedom.)
    There’s no problem in protesting against a rule, if you don’t agree.
    The problem is lots of people behaving as if they didn’t know, if they know but expect it not to be aplied, or as if this particular rule is a great injustice, or even illegal! It is not illegal nor great injustice, but even if it was, the desire should be knowing rules are equally aplied, and until the unfair ones be changed (and the “illegal” overulled).
    You ask:
    “who benefits from two great players being knocked out of the tournament?”
    I answer “Everybody”!
    Not because I’m sort of a “rules and laws addited”, but because that sad event (BTW exclusively caused by those players absense, with more or less blame on them) MUST not be easy to happen again, and because it is that way for everybody, and because it is not sadder than if the tolerance would be different but also broken by the same players.
    And yes, on this case we even now know they have been warned and called to play 5 minutes and then 1 minute before.
    I wish every FIDE rule to be as problematic as this one!
93. WGIFM on November 30th, 2009 18:25
    

    I am just thinking on other competitive events. Swimming, athletics, football, basketball etc. Perhaps there are exceptions (do not know) but normally one has to show up at the start of the game/competition.
    The argument that after a lot of preparations and invested energy it is just stupid to let good players knocked out from the tournament with the help of a too rigid rule is not very convincing. Is this all you have against the rule? I do not think demanding the players to show up on time is only a question politeness or gentleman behaviour, it is just the minimum investment from a player who in fact agreed previously to start his game at a certain time and a certain place.

    If the rule is bad, then what are the suggestions, how long should the opponent wait for her/his late opponent?
94. Bert de Bruut on November 30th, 2009 21:00
    

    @WGIFM “If the rule is bad, then what are the suggestions, how long should the opponent wait for her/his late opponent”.”

    The point is chess is a turn-base strategy/tactics game, not a real time contact sport! You don’t have to wait for your opponent at all, you make your move and push the clock, or the arbiter pushes your opponents clock, and his/her time is running, while you can score a drink (or a smoke for that matter, but as we all know it not only costs points, but also kills…) In chess there is no running against the chronometer, nor any goals to score or balls in a zone the opponent has to defend! In short, there is no need whatsoever for both players to be present at the board all the time, and not even at the start of the game. We all know that, but FIDE hates it because IOC members have no clue about this, and just consider it “unprofessional”. And of course, IOC is where the real money is and that makes all the FIDE bigshots drool with greed, so that the sold out our game in vain hopes of Olympic status. Ha ha, that will never happen…!
95. Muadhib on November 30th, 2009 21:53
    

    Many say that a game can begin withut both players being present. I say it can NOT.

    The game starts with a handshake, an unwriten rule thats in place for centuries, and has recently been added to FIDE rules (not he handshake itself, but refusal of handshake).

    So how can the game begin if one of the players isn’t there???
96. Castro on November 30th, 2009 22:33
    

    It’s not necessary to be fundamentalist on this.
    There is a time to begin. There is a known tolerance. There can even be punctual non-writen tolerances or excepcional exempting circunstances.
    All this considered, the player is still missing? Penalize him! Of course he must lose the game then. Regardless of who he is!
    This should be normal in amatour chess. Imagine in professional chess!
    Like some tolerance after the schedule time? (Like one hour, as the standard “old rule” stated) Just participate in such kind of tournaments, NOT in a zero-tolerance ones!
    “Ah but I want to play that tournament which has “zero-tolerance” on the scheduled time”. Just arrive earlier! Grow up or grow up on your respect for others!
    The rest is poetry, conflict-loving or other form of fantasy.
97. Castro on November 30th, 2009 22:44
    

    Forgot to add:
    “Ah, but I had an accident and a good justification for being late these minutes”
    Does the arbiter accept that justification?
    More important (in my view): Does your opponent accept them?
    (Some would disagree on that, based on that it could also represent an onus on the inocent opponent. I respect that, and I think it can be food for thought)
    But given those OKs, you souldn’t have a problem animore: Please sit and play!
98. WGIFM on December 1st, 2009 01:21
    

    @Bert de Bruut
    “The point is chess is a turn-base strategy/tactics game, not a real time contact sport!”
    I think your description fits better online chess.
    You can find a lot of rules in chess implicating that it is a real time contact(?) sport in the same time. Just like about shaking hands, touching figures, making moves etc. And all these rules are as strict as this new one about appearance.
    IN online chess f. i. you can click on a figure without moving it, but in real time chess touching a figure is more meaningful.

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