Reports | November 30, 2009 19:55

World Cup: favourites through, Li Chao & Wang Yue forfeited and out

Favourites Gelfand, Gashimov, Svidler and Grischuk all reached the World Cup's 4th round yesterday, winning their minimatches in the tiebreaks. The story of the day was the forfeit of Li Chao and Wang Yue in their second rapid game. They arrived too late at the board, having a smoke in between games.

The FIDE World Chess Cup takes place November 20th-December 15th inn Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. It's a seven-round knockout with six rounds of matches comprising two games per round. The final seventh round consists of four games.

Round 1 (November 21-23): 128 players Round 5 (December 3-5): 8 players
Round 2 (November 24-26): 64 players Round 6 (December 6-8): 4 players
Round 3 (November 27-29): 32 players Round 7 (December 10-14): 2 players
Round 4 (November 30-December 2): 16 players


The time control is 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move from move one. Games start at 15:00h local time (11:00 CET).

Results round 3

World Cup 2009 | Tiebreak results round 2

Tiebreaks round 3

Now the proof is there: lighting a cigarette can be really bad for your chess. Having a smoke in between games, Li Chao and Wang Yue arrived too late at their board in yesterday's tiebreaks and so they lost their second rapid game by forfeit. The following is from a brief press conference yesterday:

- 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 .

- What did you feel at that moment?
- 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 .

- Did you try to speak with the Arbiter?
- Sure, we spoke with the Chief Arbiter, - again Wang Yue. – He said: “These are the regulations, we should follow them. The decision is final and nothing can be changed. You should take it, go and prepare for the next game. I think it was a wise advice.”

- Was the decision fair to your mind?
Yes, the decision was correct, according to the rules. The only decision that could be taken. But to my mind not fair. We cannot do anything . We just need to accept it . In China at all chess tournaments a big screen with the information about the tournament is used. A player can go to the toilet, to smoke or to do something else. But thanks to this screen he always knows how much time he has before the start of the game. Here there is no screen. But we hope that they will use it in future. Most of all I feel pity for Li Chao: he started smoking here, in Khanty to join my smoking company. (...)

The two Chinese players had started with a draw in the first rapid game, and so both of them were 1.5-0.5 down after this incident. Probably not in their best shape by then, both of them went down with Black in a Petroff ending; Wang Yue lost to Bacrot and Li Chao to Gashimov.

Judit Polgar continued in aggressive style and sacrificed an exchange against Gelfand in game 1, but this time the Israeli grandmaster immediately returned the material, and eventually emerged two pawns up. After a draw in the second game, Gelfand again won with the black pieces, again in a Petroff, in game 3 to reach the next round.

Svidler was on the verge of elimination against his Bundesliga team mate Naiditsch, when he lost the third rapid game with White and then got a lost position with Black in the last one. In a must-win situation Svidler had opted for 1...g6 against Naiditsch' 1.e4, but soon he faced an absolute horror scenario, with a White knight reaching e6.

The simple 16.Nxg7+ and 17.Bxh6 must be winning for White, but instead Naiditsch tried to mate his opponent. Svidler found a series of only moves to stay in the game, and eventually won after Naiditsch first missed 37.Rh4 (winning on the spot: 37...Qc5 38.Rf4+!) and then blundered a rook. A shocking experience for the German grandmaster, who couldn't keep up with his level and lost without a fight in the blitz.

Jakovenko started with a nice queen sac against Areshchenko, then drew twice and finished off with a Black victory. Grischuk and Jobava also reached the blitz stage, where the Russian won both games, the second one in a Petroff where the white queen was caught on move 16.

Viktor Laznicka is having an excellent World Cup; after eliminating Cheparinov he yesterday knocked out Bologan. In game 2 the thematic ...d5 push in a Hedgehog position was killing and in the last game Bologan should probably have preferred 52...Nd7 or 52...Kg5 because in the game the study-like 54.h4!! held at least draw for White, and eventually he did win.

A small upset in this round was Malakhov eliminating Eljanov, although it's not such a big surprise when you realize that Malakhov has been a 2600-high grandmaster for many years already. But his 3-0 in the rapids yesterday was quite impressive! 20...b3! and 21...Nf2! were nice in game 1, followed by a good, technical win in game 2 and a strong piece sacrifice in game 3.

Karjakin also scored a 3-0, against Navara, and in the last match Caruana defeated Alekseev. We haven't yet written much about the Italian American living in Budapest, but he's performing quite well in Khanty-Mansiysk. So far he has opened all his White games with 1.d4, and with it he defeated Bruzon's Bogo-Indian, drew three times against Dominguez' Grünfeld and beat Alekseev's Benoni once.

Today's 4th round, which has already started at the time of writing, sees the following matches: Vachier-Lagrave vs Gelfand, Gashimov vs Caruana, Shirov vs Svidler, Laznicka vs Mamedyarov, Karjakinvs vs Vitiugov, So vs Malakhov, Bacrot vs Ponomariov and Grischuk vs Jakovenko.

All photos by Galina Popova | courtesy of FIDE

Tiebreak games round 3

Game viewer by ChessTempo

FIDE World Cup - Pairings & results rounds 2-7

Round 2
Round 3
Round 4
Round 5
Round 6
Round 7
 
Shabalov (2606)
  Navara (2707)
Navara (2707)  
Karjakin (2723)
Karjakin (2723)    
  Karjakin (2723)    
Timofeev (2651)  
Sakaev (2626)    
  Sakaev (2626)    
Radjabov (2748)      
Vitiugov (2694)    
Vitiugov (2694)    
  Vitiugov (2694)    
Milos (2603)  
Cheparinov (2671)    
  Bologan (2692)    
Bologan (2692)      
Laznicka (2637)    
Morozevich (2750)        
  Laznicka (2637)        
Laznicka (2637)      
   
Milov (2652)    
  Mamedyarov (2719)    
Mamedyarov (2719)      
Mamedyarov (2719)    
Wang Hao (2708)    
  Wang Hao (2708)    
Ganguly (2654)  
Meier (2653)  
  Vachier-Lagrave (2718)  
Vachier-Lagrave (2718)    
Vachier-Lagrave (2718)  
Yu Yangyi (2527)      
  Yu Yangyi (2527)      
Bartel (2618)    
 
Amonatov (2631)      
  Gelfand (2758)      
Gelfand (2758)        
Gelfand (2758)      
Polgar (2680)      
  Polgar (2680)      
Nisipeanu (2677)    
 
Iturrizaga (2605)  
  Jobava (2696)  
Jobava (2696)    
Grischuk (2736)  
Grischuk (2736)      
  Grischuk (2736)      
Tkachiev (2642)    
 
Sandipan (2623)  
  Jakovenko (2736)  
Jakovenko (2736)    
Jakovenko (2736)  
Rublevsky (2697)  
  Areshchenko (2664)  
Areshchenko (2664)
 
Sasikiran (2664)
  Bacrot (2700)
Bacrot (2700)  
Bacrot (2700)
Wang Yue (2734)    
  Wang Yue (2734)    
Savchenko (2644)  
Akobian (2624)    
  Ponomariov (2739)    
Ponomariov (2739)      
Ponomariov (2739)    
Motylev (2695)    
  Motylev (2695)    
Najer (2695  
Li Chao (2596)    
  Li Chao (2596)    
Pelletier (2589)      
Gashimov (2758)    
Gashimov (2758)        
  Gashimov (2758)        
Zhou Jianchao (2629      
   
Caruana (2652)    
  Caruana (2652)    
Dominguez (2719)      
Caruana (2652)    
Alekseev (2715)    
  Alekseev (2715)    
Fressinet (2653)  
Khalifman (2612)  
  Tomashevsky (2708)  
Tomashevsky (2708)    
Shirov (2719)  
Shirov (2719)      
  Shirov (2719)      
Fedorchuk (2619)    
 
Nyback (2628)      
  Svidler (2754)      
Svidler (2754)        
Svidler (2754)      
Naiditsch (2689)      
  Naiditsch (2689)      
Onischuk (2672)    
 
Zhou Weiqi (2603)  
  Kamsky (2695)  
Kamsky (2695)    
So (2640)  
Ivanchuk (2739)      
  So (2640)      
So (2640)    
 
Inarkiev (2645)  
  Eljanov (2729)  
Eljanov (2729)    
Malakhov (2706)  
Malakhov (2706)  
  Malakhov (2706)  
Smirin (2662)



Links

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

Thomas's picture

I guess Michael inferred this from the interview, so there seem to be two different versions. Whom should we trust (more)? The arbiter who is supposedly neutral (unless one believes in anti-Chinese conspiration theories)? The players defending themselves?
Wang Yue and Li Chao might get into (even more) trouble back home if they admit neglecting warnings by the arbiter .... .

Eiae's picture

Poor Li

Luis's picture

@ Michael:

"According to Wang Yue the arbiter didn’t inform him and Li Chao at all. There was only “some fellow” who approached them when it was already too late."

Do you mind mentioning where did you read about this? Would like to check it myself, thanks!

Michael's picture

According to Wang Yue the arbiter didn't inform him and Li Chao at all. There was only "some fellow" who approached them when it was already too late.

Thomas's picture

Chessbase also says that there wasn't only a general announcement (in whatever language) concerning the imminent start of the next round, but two personal invitations to both Chinese players:

"Apparently both players were in the smoking area after the first rapid chess tiebreak game. The arbiter went to the area and announced that the games would start in three minutes, and then again in one minute." Even if Wang Yue and Li Chao speak and understand only Chinese, he may have given a non-verbal gesture such as pointing in the direction of the playing hall ... .

What else, what more could the arbiter do? Grab one or both players to make them reach their board in time? If this report is true, it is also sort of understandable that the arbiter saw no reason for clemency .... .

Michael's picture

Curiously Chessbase presents a slightly different version of the interview. According to the official site Wang Yue said that the decision was in accordance with the rules, "but to my mind not fair." Chessbase, however, cut that sentence and has him saying that the decision was "correct and fair". It's interesting that Chessbase gives the official site as their source, but manipulate Wang Yue's statement.

Clifford's picture

The rapids have a floating start time (based on when the last game of the previous round finishes), so one would have expected the organisers to at least warn the players some time before the next round was due to begin.
But with the Appeals panel made up of well-paid FIDE appointees rather than players, there was no hope of the Chinese getting the forfeits overturned.

Muadhib's picture

They WERE warned!!!

They were notified 3 minutes before the start, and they were notified 1 minute before the start. What more do you want???

Meppie's picture

I can't stop thinking that it's pretty stupid. If they were warned or not.
This is so unprofessional.

jmd85146's picture

I don't understand why a player should be punished for arriving late? He punishes himself already with a disadvantage on the clock...

Meppie's picture

@jmd85146
That's another discussion. At this moment you lose when you are late, and everybody knows. So be in time!

Luis's picture

The rules are very clear and players should know (and abide by) them.

Though there may still be some details unclear, reports say the Chinese players were warned twice and there's no reason to think it was in a language they couldn't understand (as would be logical to expect in an international event as important as this). Their behavior (accepting the "veredict" and playing on without further protests after trying to appeal unsuccesfully ) seems to confirm this.

A pity after so much effort, travel, previous good results, etc, but I'm sure they learned a lesson and smart players should heed this example...

...though I'm sure we'll see similar cases in a not-so-distant future, as well as other silly things like cell phones disqualifications, etc...

Arne Moll's picture

It would be interesting to know in which language the press conference was given. Do the Chinese speak Russian? The Russian version has the word 'nye spravedlivoye' which means 'not fair', 'unjust'. The next sentence, given in English as 'We cannot do anything' in Russian has the verb 'pereigrat' (which means 'replay'), it translates to something like 'but there's nothing to replay, right?'.
Michael is absolutely right the ChessBase version of the interview is incomplete, at least compared to the Russian one. Can anyone who was present maybe clarify this?

Castro's picture

Warning them was not necesary at all. They KNEW their obligations.
If warnings were made (as it strongly seems), they just increased the level the players negletion (?).
It's obvious a sad thing to happen, that's true.
In practical terms, maybe warning their captain (as they have one there) would be something more efective.
But all in all, I'm GLAD it turned out that way, otherwise there would always be "distracted" persons (players, fans, etc.) who would "obviously" expect personal --- almost dragging --- warnings have to be made in the future, or else kind of no real obligation would be required, and scandall would always threatened all sanction attempts, as a blackmail!

Nakamura fan's picture

Ivanchuk is not retiring. The London tourney will be fascinating. 5 of the 8 players are Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2801
2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2772
3 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2715
4 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2707
5 Adams, Michael

Michael's picture

Luis, this is how I understand Wang Yue's statement as quoted on this very site. His account sounds plausible. I simply cannot believe that any professional player would calmly stay outside smoking after being informed by the arbiter that a very important game (a rapid game where every second is valuable!) would start in one minute. That would be ridiculous. But of course, the players should have asked about the starting time before smoking.

Michael's picture

Wow, I just noticed on their German site which source Chessbase relied on for their report: a posting on English Chess Forum by Leonard Barden who wasn't on site at all and simply mentions a rumour that the Chinese were informed by the arbiter. Not exactly a reliable source, is it?

Jonathan Berry's picture

Once again, the Zero Forfeit rule rears its ugly head, and the repute of chess takes a beating. Will the history books have an asterisk beside the results of the 2009 World Cup? How many times at this level of a world championship (from the historical perspective let's say Interzonal or higher) have games been decided off the board with no move played? Well, there's Fischer at Sousse, and Huebner against Petrosian, but both acted of free will. There's Tal at Curacao and didn't Petrosian lose a match against Kortchnoi ... after illness? Again, that's force majeure. They lost because their conditions prevented them from playing for days. That's to start the list. Do any chess historians want to round it out? Surely there are one-hour forfeits. Now we have two Zero Forfeits.

It's too bad that there doesn't seem to have been an appeal. At least with an appeal we would have the signed statements of witnesses. Much better than hearsay and guesses.

If they're going to have zealous Zero rulings, yes, the arbiters should go to where the players are, and to the washrooms, and round them up. Even--gasp--interrupt their conversation to tell them that the game is starting. Organizers should be similarly motivated. This should be as a matter of course, every time. There is a detail here that nobody's mentioned: the Chief Arbiter is from Armenia, and one of the players who profited from the forfeits is from Azerbaijan (which is in a state resembling war with Armenia), so the arbiter had to do everything by the book. He couldn't show the slightest leniency to the Chinese players because then some would say that he was being partial.

Castro's picture

Sorry to say, and believe my greatest respect, but

WHAT?? Can one take anything of that seriously?? Please!

Completely out, your shot.

The catastrophistic view is just that.
Your last paragraph is simply... "undealable" and surreal, to a frightening point!

As for

"It’s too bad that there doesn’t seem to have been an appeal. At least with an appeal we would have the signed statements of witnesses. Much better than hearsay and guesses"

I agree! Nothing like an easily dismissed appeal (which would require a lot of nerve to present), to put things even more in their places!
Repeat: no disrespect meant, but I think you're (so!) wrong.

Clifford's picture

Muadhib,
According to the players, they were not warned even once that the games were about to begin.

Luis's picture

Thanks Michael! I agree it's hard to believe a player would remain calmly smoking after being warned his game is about to begin... but then it seems the whole situation is not that clear and there are "versions to choose".... again a sad affair but I believe the players should be responsible for being at the right place at the right time... with no need for extra warnings, etc. after all these are supposed to be chess professionals and this is the World Cup, not your weekly club tournament!

Let's just hope people will learn from this and be more careful in future events...

Guillaume's picture

I fully agree with Johnathan Berry (sorry Castro, but you're the one not making any sense). This zero tolerance rule is absurd. It should be the role of the organizers and of the arbiters to make sure the games do get played. Grab the players by the neck and drag them to the playing room if needed.

Can we imagine Anand being told in Sofia: "Sorry, Mr. Anand, you are one minute late, which means you lost game 5 by forfeit... Er, what do you mean you were delayed at the metal detector screening because you were asked to remove your shoes?"

Castro's picture

Ah I see! You're one of the elitist-kind of chess! That who needs examples like "Mr. Anand" :-)
How about:
- Oh Mr Anand, you want to take back the move? Be my guest!
- Oh, more than one hour late? No problem, Mr. Anand!
- Want to smoke at the board? So do I!
- The ring of phone was just a slightly tiny little ring? Oh, Mr. Anand, of course that doesn't count!
Yes, it's understandable why I don't make sense for you! And having view of what you say (and Jonathan Berry), I'm glad --- really happy! ---- being on the antiphodes!
Sorry for my English!

Guillaume's picture

I'm sorry if an example is something either too subtle or too trivial for you (I'm not sure which triggered your mocking comment).

So, let me rephrase, just for you: it would be terrible to have a World Championship match decided upon such an absurd thing as a player arriving one minute late for a game.

Castro's picture

@Guillaume

Sorry for the apparent bitterness. It's not my intention to disturb you.
I'm just somewhat fed up with some people saying that (appart from my bad English) I don't make sense on this, and with some real nonsenses by their part, which must not be your case, if what you were realy saying is

"it would be terrible to have a World Championship match decided upon such an absurd thing as a player arriving one minute late for a game" :-)

No one here would agree more with you than myself. Thx for translating, hehe!

Now, being against the "zero tolerance" is ok. One can have opinions. I never saw one good reason for being against, but I must admit it can exist.
Do you know the "zero tolerance" rule is optional?
There can be tournaments with 0, as can be tournaments with other tolerance.
It must be known in advance.
You only play if you fully know and agree with the regulations.
On FIDE events, the tolerance is 0. People MUST be on time, much less strict than if to catch a plain.
If you anyway are to play there, and you're afraid you might be late, try to be there EARLIER, and consider the waiting time your "tolerance".
Consider it as any other rule, because if there's something that rule isn't (and shouldn't be) is unfair or discriminatory. It works with anyone, even for Anand!

And sad and terrible as it would be, an absense of him beyond the time limit, should grant him a forfeit, sure! If he had a GOOD reason for the delay, THAT is an exception, and should be considered. Otherwise it would be ten times SAD and TERRIBLE not to forfeit him, begining with his opponent (and all others who would be discriminated and the regulations which would serve for nothing).

Where is the problem? Why so much scandall?

Castro's picture

Ah, sorry, just to add that I agree with your sentence, EXCEPT the qualification "absurd".
(Of course! :-) )

Muadhib's picture

@ Clifford

The arbiter always announce the games with 3 minutes to go and with 1 minute to go. If Chinese had cigarettes in their ears or something and didn't hear that announcement, then it's their problem.

I don't really see the pooint of dicsussing this any further.

1) The rules are clear
2) The rules were known in advance
3) Every participant accepted the rules (if he didn't know what he is accepting than it is his problem)
4) They were penalisez according to the rules
5) They accepted it.

I should add that they accepted it professionally (without crying) for what I apploud them. This shows the main cultural difference between easterners and westerners. Westerners would cry - very loudly. The easterner accepts his own responsibility of breaking the rule and takes the penalty.

gg's picture

"this is of course plain nonsense. There was a break of ten minutes after the last rapid game of the previous round finished"

The players had to follow all the games all the time to find out when they could get a few minutes for not only bathroom breaks, but smoking and eating something, and seeing to it that they were at the board well in time before the next game not to take any risks. So the nonsensical longer bathroom breaks would have been difficult to fit in anywhere, even if not combined with eating, smoking etc. Naturally better to just schedule rounds for 10, 12, 14 and 16 instead of treating the players like cattle, but it's FIDE after all.

Different versions of what happened exist but I believe more in Wang Yue's saying that they were not informed before they had been forfeited than the version that both players were informed twice but just didn't bother to turn up, and the official tournament bulletin's calling the Chinese players explanation "ridiculous" sounds rude. But instead of speculating more I will leave the subject for good :)

Thomas's picture

"No time for bathroom visits ...."

gg, this is of course plain nonsense. There was a break of ten minutes after the last rapid game of the previous round finished - I guess this is an undisputed fact, maybe the only one in the entire controversy.

Whether players were (personally) warned or not, several versions circulate. Whether the interviews were translated correctly, hmmm, do you know the original (Chinese?) version???

leigh's picture

I read Chinese players' report.

The true is:
The arbiter directly informed them forfeit after the games began 1 minute.

Muadhib, where did you get the mistake info?

Guillaume's picture

Chessbase has a very interesting interview by GM Onischuk. He explains the situation very clearly:
"I was very disappointed with the situation with the Chinese players. To my mind a lot had been solved unwisely. We all know the rules: who is late, loses a game. But there is a difference with the two late appearances. If a player knows that a game starts at 15.00h sharp and he comes at 15.01, he deserves a defeat. No matter why he was late.

But here we have another situation in principle. The participants of the tie breaks are ready for 14 additional games. But no one knows the exact time of the next game. I mean everyone can miss the start of the next game. Today the Chinese players were unlucky, tomorrow – someone of us can be in the same situation. Now tell me, what is good in the fact that two brilliant chess players lost the opportunity to fight for the World Cup because of an unfortunate misunderstanding. Not only they who suffered. Their fans suffered with them. Chess in general suffered."

Jonathan Berry's picture

Appeals Committee:
Chairman : Boris Kutin (SLO)
Jorge Vega (MEX)
Zurab Azmaiparashvili (GEO)

Castro's picture

Onischuk is right in that it must have been an "unfortunate misunderstanding" and that it was bad for everyone.
Worse would be making unjustified exceptions.
Surely all is arranged and informed, and being rapid and blitz tiebreaks can't be an excuse.
Therefor, as non capable of presenting a good justification, the misunderstanding they may have had is their own and full responsability.
For instance, it's not because of being chinese that they (and captain, etc. And at the 3rd day of tiebreaks...) would have things less understood than all the others.
They accepted it, btw. Not even the weakness and nerve of presenting an appeal (its obvious dismissing would perheaps be good for some "scandalised" and irrealistic fans). Congratulations for the two GMs on that!

Guillaume's picture

"Surely all is arranged and informed, and being rapid and blitz tiebreaks can’t be an excuse."

Castro, have you even bothered reading Onischuk's interview?

"No one knows the exact time of the next game. I mean everyone can miss the start of the next game. [...] It means that each participant must come into the playing hall every five minutes, in order not to miss the start of the next game. It is awfully uncomfortable."

nanny's picture

Onischuk's proposal wont help much. Some players wouldn't hear the beeper, or would be wondering what is beeping, and miss their games anyway.

I propose that the tournament organizers provide an arbiter for each player who holds the hand of his assigned chess player and follows him EVERYWHERE (holding his hand of course). That arbiter is responsible for hand-leading his player to the right table at the designated time. The role of this hand-holding arbiter can be taken by players parents (they have practice).

That is what it must be done, because chess players absolutely can not be handled like adults, but like children.

P.S.: I apologise to children older than 5 years.

gg's picture

“No one knows the exact time of the next game. I mean everyone can miss the start of the next game. [...] It means that each participant must come into the playing hall every five minutes, in order not to miss the start of the next game. It is awfully uncomfortable.”

Yes, Onischuk does sound convincing, the players had to be in the playing hall all the time, throughout the day. No time for bathroom visits unless they were very fast, or a cigarette, if you are a smoker. The report that they had been warned a couple of times but for some reason just preferred to forfeit did, not too surprisingly, show itself to have no foundation in reality, just like their interviews have been translated to say approximately the opposite of what they actually said. Very badly organised by FIDE, as usual.

Muadhib's picture

No chess player is alone in the tournament. Everyone has a coach, or a second, or partner, or parent, or friend, or some delegate from national federation that accompanies him. Couldn't they make themselves usefull and make sure that their guy doesn't miss a game?

test's picture

How can you not believe the version of Wang Yue.
Are you seriously considering that after somebody tell's him the game is about to start he goes: Fuck that, I'm staying here smoking another cigarette. Absurd.

Latest articles