2017 Canadian Championship

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Going to a blitz format as per FIDE trends is where this mess up all started.

Agreed. Nothing is wrong with playing rapids until a winner emerges. Blitz is just calling for trouble.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

The absence of an accessible extra QUEEN was where this mess up all started.

Going to a blitz format as per FIDE trends is where this mess up all started.

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

In a blitz tiebreak, the table with extra queens is completely useless.

The absence of an accessible extra QUEEN was where this mess up all started.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

sam*bu*ev
verb

In chess, to hide a captured piece from the opponent's view.
example: Hey man, did you sambuev my queen?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

As such, you can either stop the clock right away before even moving the pawn and restart the clock right before putting a new piece on the board, or move the pawn to d8 and then stop the clock. Either way would be fine.

So you can push the pawn and then stop the clock to look for the missing piece? Just so it's clear, we're talking about stoping the clock, not starting your opponent's time.

I might have got it wrong, but this seems contradictory to what Louis wrote. But I'm really wondering: is this specifically covered in the laws of chess, or are we just arguing about each other's interpretation? I don't mind either way, I'm just really curious to know, in case I end up playing in a tournament with a trigger happy arbiter.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversy

should a national championship be decided by a player who absent-mindedly hides a critical piece required by his opponent and a team of apparently unobservant and unthinking arbiters?

This is chess and the CFC so yes, anything goes if it's not very specifically covered in the rulebook. Some players know that and know how to take advantage of that.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Controversy

And there it all is in a single picture! Off board, two black pieces lie on their sides where Nikolay knocked them when he was scrambling to find his queen. I wonder what the arbiter and his assistant(s) - how many assistants did the arbiter have? - were looking at? Wouldn't you think one of them would have thought, "why is Nikolay scrambling?", and then LOOKED? And if he/she/they had looked....well no wonder Nikolay couldn't find his queen; it's in Bator's hand!! One way of looking at the NAC's task: should a national championship be decided by a player who absent-mindedly hides a critical piece required by his opponent and a team of apparently unobservant and unthinking arbiters?

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Controversy

Thanks for the hint, Sid. It's been, in years, the number of pieces in a chess set since we first worked together!

Unfortunately, the hint did not work for me. facebook and flickr are two sites that work opposite to chesstalk in terms of images. They want you to upload from your own computer, and they make it not easy to locate the URL which links directly to an image. I uploaded the photo to both fb and flickr, worked out the photo URL ... but unfortunately chesstalk tells me they are invalid, whether I use the original https: or edit it to http: Meantime (reconfirming merely that the URL is correct) it works fine redownloading the image from flickr to a different browser. I don't have NoScript on this browser.

I guess I'm in the doghouse chez chesstalk. I may be in the doghouse at home because I've spent an hour or two on this rather than attend to other matters. Double (queen) drop, double doghouse!

Maybe somebody more blessed can go to 14:20 in the video and do this. VLC, for example, allows the taking of a snapshot. The videographer was brilliant, it's all there: five arms, two queens, the clocks, the upside-down rook. A bit reminiscent of Jordaens.

Thanks, I think this is the image you want posted? I do have fond memories from those times. Hard to believe for me that it was that long ago. The thing needs the remote reference unchecked in order to render the image from a link. Funny how if Bator simply kept his rook on d7 guarding against the queening of the d pawn all he had to do was push his pawn a7 and then a8+ skewering Nickolay's queen the second it promoted to h1. Such a fine line between victory and defeat!

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Controversy

Jonathan if you want to post a picture here simply post your pic to a photo hosting site first and then paste the appropriate link after you have clicked on the "insert image" option and used the "from url" option.

Thanks for the hint, Sid. It's been, in years, the number of pieces in a chess set since we first worked together!

Unfortunately, the hint did not work for me. facebook and flickr are two sites that work opposite to chesstalk in terms of images. They want you to upload from your own computer, and they make it not easy to locate the URL which links directly to an image. I uploaded the photo to both fb and flickr, worked out the photo URL ... but unfortunately chesstalk tells me they are invalid, whether I use the original https: or edit it to http: Meantime (reconfirming merely that the URL is correct) it works fine redownloading the image from flickr to a different browser. I don't have NoScript on this browser.

I guess I'm in the doghouse chez chesstalk. I may be in the doghouse at home because I've spent an hour or two on this rather than attend to other matters. Double (queen) drop, double doghouse!

Maybe somebody more blessed can go to 14:20 in the video and do this. VLC, for example, allows the taking of a snapshot. The videographer was brilliant, it's all there: five arms, two queens, the clocks, the upside-down rook. A bit reminiscent of Jordaens.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Controversy

"You may post attachments"

Error Message: (begin message)
JavaScript from "forum.chesstalk.com"
The following errors occurred
SambNor.jpg: Exceeds forum quota by 45.46 MB.
(end message)

SambNor.jpg is 104,997 bytes in size.

A picture might have been worth a thousand whatever. Milliseconds? Nah, a different one.

While I'm reporting peculiarities, it must be annoying for French-speaking users when the interface is in English, but under "Additional Options" in the provided English editor one finds this phrase: "Options diverses:" which, unless I am badly mistaken, is French.

Secret prediction.

Jonathan if you want to post a picture here simply post your pic to a photo hosting site first and then paste the appropriate link after you have clicked on the "insert image" option and used the "from url" option.

[Vlad Rekhson]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

1) No, you stop the clock and call for the arbiter, without making any move. This is the proper procedure to promote a pawn with an unavailable piece or claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule.
2) NEVER do that.
3) If you put the pawn on the 8th rank without replacing the pawn with a piece, say "Queen" out loud and THEN stop the clock, you only manage to play an illegal move (a7-a8=P is an illegal move). You might be allowed to get a Queen, though, if the penalty for this illegal move is not "losing the game". Alternatively, if you play your move, stop the clock and call for the arbiter to claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule, this does not work because it is not your turn to move anymore. Your opponent might decide to play a move that no longer allows you to claim a draw.

So, every time you need the assistance of the arbiter for a serious reason, stop your clock and call for the arbiter. Never play any move before or while doing this. Of course, every time you stop the clock, you must have a valid reason, if not you might get a warning or penalty from the arbiter.

The clock can be stopped before making the move. By the current rules the pawn doesn't actually need to reach the promotion square for a new piece to be placed, in other words if you have a pawn on d7 and you want to promote it to d8, you can just remove it from the board and put a new piece on d8. Instead, you could actually move the pawn to d8 and then replace it. The only thing that you cannot do is place the pawn on d8 and then press the clock as that is illegal move. As such, you can either stop the clock right away before even moving the pawn and restart the clock right before putting a new piece on the board, or move the pawn to d8 and then stop the clock. Either way would be fine.
When I run blitz tournaments both with adults and with kids, I always go over the current promotion rules before the tournament starts, as they often cause controversial endings of games and also seem to change quite often.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Controversy

... On move 28 [Bator] recaptured and held the queen, adding to his stash on moves 38 and 41. On move 50 after Nikolay promoted to an upside-down rook, [Bator] released the three pieces (pawn, rook, queen) by the side of the board with his left hand, while using the right hand to pick up a white queen from the side of the board where the captured pieces stood. Before he could complete the promotion, the arbiter had stopped play. I have a 1 MB snapshot of this moment from the video at 14:20 ...

"You may post attachments"

Error Message: (begin message)
JavaScript from "forum.chesstalk.com"
The following errors occurred
SambNor.jpg: Exceeds forum quota by 45.46 MB.
(end message)

SambNor.jpg is 104,997 bytes in size.

A picture might have been worth a thousand whatever. Milliseconds? Nah, a different one.

While I'm reporting peculiarities, it must be annoying for French-speaking users when the interface is in English, but under "Additional Options" in the provided English editor one finds this phrase: "Options diverses:" which, unless I am badly mistaken, is French.

Secret prediction.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

The FIDE ARBITERS’ COMMISSION says this at the end of article 3.7:

"When a player places an inverted (upside‐down) Rook in the promotion square and continues the game, the piece is considered as a Rook, even if he names it as a “Queen” or any other piece. To put an inverted Rook on the promotion square is not considered as an illegal move. The Arbiter has to intervene and put the Rook in its correct position on the square and he may penalize the player according to the Article 12.9."

Here is the link: http://docplayer.net/43348011-Fide-a...una-sumus.html

Yes, everyone agrees that the upside down rook was a blunder made in the time scramble. It is very unfortunate that a queen wasn't available which led to that error. It seems that almost everywhere else in the world a spare queen would be on the table. With passed pawns on the board one, player and arbiter and organizer, might think to look around for the spare queens. Three people pointing to a Queen that Bator had just placed down showed that nobody was thinking ahead. The arbiter wasn't paying attention. This disgusting disaster was so easily preventable by the normal practice of having spare queens within reach. The player alone has to pay for his and the arbiters blunders, as well as the disrespectful use of a street hustling technique by Bator the magician.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

No, I don't buy this. As a direct result of distraction from his opponent, the player could not find the Queen on the table. This does not explain at all why he under-promoted to a rook (he should have known that an inverted rook is still a rook) or why he did not stop the clock to seek help from the arbiter (he should have known that this is the proper procedure to follow). If I make a bad blunder on the board (like under-promoting my pawn), can I claim to the arbiter that my opponent distracted me? Come on!

As a direct result of distraction from his opponent, the player could not find the Queen on the table

Searching for the Queen meant Nickolay using up time he did not have if he wanted to follow proper procedures. So, every time my opponents in time trouble I will hide the Queen to gain an advantage?? Oh, and then put it back down only after my opponent has under promoted so the arbiter does not notice I distracted him?? And then not say a word when the arbiter points out that the Queen was available? Possibly Bator was blameless however Rule 12.6 does not have a provision for who is to blame. Secondly, Bator's behavior of remaining silent is not good for the reputation of chess as can be seen by the commentary at chess.com. Maybe Bator's silence was a result of not being aware what he had done. Again, the rules of chess prohibits taking actions that hurt the reputation of chess do not take into account whether it is deliberate or not.
Clearly the arbiter thought it was relevant that the Queen was available else he would not have pointed it out. Bator is not only guilty of distracting his opponent but also of not informing the arbiter that he did, instead his actions would indicate that he covered up what he did.

can I claim to the arbiter that my opponent distracted me?

Only if you are lucky enough to have the whole thing recorded on video

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

All well and good except the player inadvertently under-promoted to a rook as a direct result of distraction from his opponent.The distraction was only obvious with the hindsight of the video.

No, I don't buy this. As a direct result of distraction from his opponent, the player could not find the Queen on the table. This does not explain at all why he under-promoted to a rook (he should have known that an inverted rook is still a rook) or why he did not stop the clock to seek help from the arbiter (he should have known that this is the proper procedure to follow). If I make a bad blunder on the board (like under-promoting my pawn), can I claim to the arbiter that my opponent distracted me? Come on!