2017 Canadian Championship

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

They can announce as much special tables and as much tiebreaks as they wish, if they don't them, simply USELESS!

What does this mean in plain English?

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

It is very bad practice for any player in any situation to queen a pawn by using an upside-down rook rather than stopping the clock and looking for a real Queen. The rule is crystal-clear, including the fact that the arbiter has to intervene:

"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."

By the way, there was a special table with 20 White Queens and 20 Black Queens. This was announced to all players just before the beginning of round 1.

Use
They can announce as much special tables and as much tiebreaks as they wish, if they don't use them, simply USELESS!

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

It is very bad practice for any player in any situation to queen a pawn by using an upside-down rook rather than stopping the clock and looking for a real Queen. The rule is crystal-clear, including the fact that the arbiter has to intervene:

"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."

By the way, there was a special table with 20 White Queens and 20 Black Queens. This was announced to all players just before the beginning of round 1.

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Hi,


A minor argument can be made about the arbiter not providing an additional set of Queens, which should be done at the start of the game, never during (unless on request by a player). And that he/she may have been at fault for not doing so. Under no circumstance should an arbiter stop the flow of the game to remind a player he's holding a piece, even the potential promotion piece of the opponent. Neither should an arbiter start placing pieces as a hint that a promotion may occur.

The player who is about to promote should have stopped the clock upon not finding a Queen. As mentioned by Noritsyn, it's probably madness for anyone to have such composure and nerves to do so with no time on the clock. But that is the rule. I somehow doubt any arbiter would forfeit a player for pausing the clock a first time even if a Queen was present but the player had a rushed moment of blindness.

As the inverted Rook was placed, it appeared to me that the arbiter did the correct thing. Stopped the clock, did not pronounce it as an illegal move, inverted the Rook on its base and the game continued with the promoted piece being a Rook. We can discuss rules separately, whether they are ridiculous or not, somewhere else. Based on the video, as the arbiter paused the clock, it appeared as though there was a Queen available for promotion, as Sambuev had just released it. The arbiter was present and intervened at the only time he could and should. Taking into account that there was no video-replay, I have no idea what the arbiter could have done differently. Again, the only improvement would have been to have additional Queens available beside the board from move 1.
I don't think it's reasonable for the arbiter to be blamed for keeping track on what's in who's hands. There is a blitz game going on and the priority of an arbiter's eyes are on the board itself and clock.


---


Watching the video, Sambuev had captured and held pieces in his hand previously. It is not uncommon for players to do so, be it a nervous thing, being too involved in the game to put them on the table, whatever it is... I find it quite hard to believe that the Queen would have been deliberately withheld ~20 moves prior a hypothetical promotion. It also appeared to me that Sambuev released the Queen (along with some other pieces) in preparation to pick up his own promotion Queen piece for his upcoming move. It was not in any way obvious to me whether Sambuev placed the black Queen on the table to aid Noritsyn, to make it available, or even to disguise that he was holding it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sambuev wasn't even aware what type of pieces he was holding in his hand.
Some people in this forum are blaming Sambuev for holding the Queen and keeping his silence and because of it, he should be forfeited. This is completely ricidulous. Unless you want to make an official accusation about Sambuev maliciously and deliberetaly withholding the piece for unsportsmanship reasons. Again, that is insane. I could be wrong but from my personal observations around the Toronto scene, Sambuev, as well as Noritsyn, have always displayed the most professional, highest standards of at-the-board conduct and behavior. As for Sambuev's inaction during the game pause, it was the correct thing. An arbiter had just paused the clock and made a decision, a decision made according to the rules of chess, without Sambuev having complained or disputed anything one way or another. Again to my eyes, it was not clear at all to me that Sambuev was even aware what pieces he was holding and the reason for releasing them seemed very much to grab his own promotion Queen.


---


Several people seem to be beating up on the arbiter. Arbiters too make mistakes, no doubt. Some perhaps shouldn't even be arbiters. I don't know who this arbiter is, I don't care to attack or defend him, and I certainly don't know anything about his history as an arbiter. Looking at this chess incident, the only fault I could find was perhaps not having additional Queens beside the board before move 1. And I don't even rank this as such a serious fault. Without the benefit of video-replay, I very honestly can't think of what else the arbiter should or could have done. (Maybe in future we should use video-replay to aid arbiters, who knows). It's easy to blame the arbiters for what happens. The reality is... arbiters don't always know every little rule out there. The harsher reality is... there are scores of players (including professional ones) that are quite ignorant about a lot of these little FIDE rules. It's an arbiter's responsibility to know the rules, as is the players'! When you enter a chess tournament, there are rules of chess, there are tournament rules... An arbiter is not expected to cover the FIDE handbook at the opening ceremony of a tournament, any tournament.

Those of you who have some personal problems or vendettas against the arbiter, I can think of two recommendations, neither include beating up on him after some incident occurs.
1 - Do it when the tournament flyer is published and the event registered. Condemn the choice of arbiter publicly or with the CFC. Do it before anything happens, at the risk that nothing will go wrong or that the arbiter will do a good job. Do it at risk that you will look like a fool.
2 - Try it. Become an arbiter for a few events. See what it's about, for good or bad.

... in so many words... Man-up.


---


The only possible appeal I can see is as pointed out by Noritsyn, Sambuev intefeered with the flow of the game. It seems abundantly clear (to me) that it was not intentional. I am not even sure what a possible outcome of this appeal would be. I would be very upset at the prospect of a rematch if I was in Sambuev's shoes, having (currently) already won the championship.
The sad summary to my mind is, against all humane odds, Noritsyn had to pause the clock and didn't.


---


Some recommendations or improvements I can think of.
- Extra Queens / promotion pieces beside the board of a speed-contest.
- Reminder of rules from arbiters before a play-off, taking into account that the pace of the tournament and some of its rules have changed from the classical component of what was previously played (maybe this was or not done by the arbiter, although he was under no obligation to do so).
- Clear the spectarors. An arbiter should be sitting or standing directly in the prime viewing spot of the board and clock, not push his way through a mob.

These blitz play-offs are simply criminal. They degenerate our most prized tournament into chaos and poor quality chess. Someone on this thread had posted a link to the Zatonskiy - Krush USA Women's Armaggeddon. FIDE knock-outs also do this, which is quite unfortunate. But we don't have to. With the exception of Head-to-Head tie-break, tiebreaks on crosstables can be difficult to comprehend. Not just logistically, but how it justifies one person being so much further ahead than the next. Some factors outside HTH tiebreaks are not dependent on the players directly involved at all.
I have read and heard it a couple of times somewhere, the idea of blitz or armaggeddon be reversed with the rapids, or even the classical. Meaning... play the fast time control first, the winner of the blitz or Armaggeddon would have draw-odds in the longer time controls. That way the match is never tied no matter what the score is. Probably a lot of people would object but it seems interesting to me, and a way to place less stress and emphasis on the fastest possible time control.



Alex Ferreira

In this exact situation, if you put yourself in Nikolai's shoes with 2 seconds left on your clock? What should you have done?
and if you're the chief arbiter and if you're Bator?

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

It is not. I just sent an email to the executive that I have been advised that it would make sense for the National Appeals Committee to look at the rest of the tiebreak game videos. It may provide more food for thought on concealing of pieces (queen's). I do not have the other videos, but the organizers/arbiters of the Canadian Championship should have them.

I was wondering why the tiebreaks went to a playoff? Was the tiebreaks explained in English and French during the tournament? From chess-results.co http://www.chess-results.com/tnr2892...flag=30&wi=821. What was the intention of putting 5 tiebreaks if of no use? They should have deleted all the tiebreaks. Am pretty sure that by defaults, there were only 3 tiebreaks in Swiss Manager. I hope that the on-going and incoming 2017 CYCC and COCC will have the tiebreaks (playoff, formula, toss coin etc.) decided at the start of Round 1.

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

I would like to reply to some posts in this thread.

1. About the idea to declare both players as a Champions and give them 2 spots in the next Olympiad Team (John Brown).

The main prize for this tournament was a spot for the World Cup-2017. The spot is only one, you can't share it. Theoretically, it's possible to give a spot in the next Olympiad Team to both Bator and Nikolay. However, it would be a clear violation of CFC rules. Also, it would be unfair to other contenders.

2. Alex Ferreira posted "Under no circumstance should an arbiter stop the flow of the game to remind a player he's holding a piece, even the potential promotion piece of the opponent". I want to share my own experience, which proves exactly the opposite.

2014, Chess Olympiad, Norway. 10th round, Canada - Belgium. Anton Kovalyov played on board 1 against some GM. Anton was holding a captured piece in his hand and was playing with it. The arbiter of this match (every match has it's separate arbiter) in my presence (I was a captain) talked to Anton and ordered him to put a captured piece on the table. Anton looked at me, waiting for my reaction. I asked him not to argue with the arbiter.

It was the end of this minor incident. Anton won his game, Bator won as well and we beat Belgium 3-1.

In my opinion, this example shows that an arbiter has a lot of options. To stop the game and to ask a certain player to do something (or to stop doing something) was one of the option.

From the video, it doesn't seem that the arbiter was aware that Sambuev was holding the black Queen as he pointed to it on the table at the end of scramble indicating that he thought it was always there and available to Noritsyn.

Would the arbiter have acted and ruled differently had he known that Sambuev was holding the black Queen under the table?

IMHO this is a question that should be asked (and answered) in the course of the appeal committee's deliberations. Basically, the question is if the arbiter had seen what is visible on the video, would he have done anything differently. If so, perhaps he could let the committee know and/ or make a recommendation to the appeals committee based upon what is now known.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

I would like to reply to some posts in this thread.

1. About the idea to declare both players as a Champions and give them 2 spots in the next Olympiad Team (John Brown).

The main prize for this tournament was a spot for the World Cup-2017. The spot is only one, you can't share it. Theoretically, it's possible to give a spot in the next Olympiad Team to both Bator and Nikolay. However, it would be a clear violation of CFC rules. Also, it would be unfair to other contenders.

2. Alex Ferreira posted "Under no circumstance should an arbiter stop the flow of the game to remind a player he's holding a piece, even the potential promotion piece of the opponent". I want to share my own experience, which proves exactly the opposite.

2014, Chess Olympiad, Norway. 10th round, Canada - Belgium. Anton Kovalyov played on board 1 against some GM. Anton was holding a captured piece in his hand and was playing with it. The arbiter of this match (every match has it's separate arbiter) in my presence (I was a captain) talked to Anton and ordered him to put a captured piece on the table. Anton looked at me, waiting for my reaction. I asked him not to argue with the arbiter.

It was the end of this minor incident. Anton won his game, Bator won as well and we beat Belgium 3-1.

In my opinion, this example shows that an arbiter has a lot of options. To stop the game and to ask a certain player to do something (or to stop doing something) was one of them. Mr. Denommee just decided not to use this option.

3. Generally, I agree with Jean Hebert that "Blaming organizer/arbiter for that leads nowhere". The funny thing is that Mr. Denommee is a member of NAC (National Appeals Committee). As far as I understand, this committee will deal with Nikolay's appeal in the next few days.

I do believe, that in this particular case Mr. Denommee was a"part of the problem" (actually, a big part) and thus, can not be a part of the solution. NAC has 5 members, so an even score without Mr. Denommee is possible. In this scenario, CFC executive should be a decision-maker.

If we use a simple language, both players made "mistakes". Possibly, Nikolay's mistake was a bigger one. However, Bator made his mistake first, and very likely, his mistake was a reason for Nikolay's mistake.

Actually, without Nikolay's "mistake", Bator could get significant advantage thanks to his own "mistake". The best option for Nikolay was to stop the clock and to start looking for a black queen. It could be a difficult mission to find a black queen in this situation. Bator would have got 10, 20 or even 30 seconds extra time. Is it fair? Probably, not.

Some posters here believe that Bator should be forfeited. Some posters believe that Bator is the Champion and NAC has no reason to change it. Some posters believe that the best thing to do is to start a new play-off match Sambuev-Noritsyn. What is the best solution? NAC will decide.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

As stated previously
Article 12.6 of Fide
"It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. "
Bator violated this rule whether wittingly or unwittingly by hiding his Queen at a crucial moment that any player would find VERY ANNOYING under the circumstances and certainly would be a distraction to the opponent who is taking time searching for his queen rather then playing chess. Time to set a precedent so this never happens again.

---

If you look once more the video, you'll see that Nikolay moved pieces farther and farther away. Good that the table was long enough and nothing fell off LOL

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Watching the video, Sambuev had captured and held pieces in his hand previously. It is not uncommon for players to do so, be it a nervous thing, being too involved in the game to put them on the table, whatever it is... I find it quite hard to believe that the Queen would have been deliberately withheld ~20 moves prior a hypothetical promotion. It also appeared to me that Sambuev released the Queen (along with some other pieces) in preparation to pick up his own promotion Queen piece for his upcoming move. It was not in any way obvious to me whether Sambuev placed the black Queen on the table to aid Noritsyn, to make it available, or even to disguise that he was holding it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sambuev wasn't even aware what type of pieces he was holding in his hand.
Some people in this forum are blaming Sambuev for holding the Queen and keeping his silence and because of it, he should be forfeited. This is completely ricidulous. Unless you want to make an official accusation about Sambuev maliciously and deliberetaly withholding the piece for unsportsmanship reasons. Again, that is insane. I could be wrong but from my personal observations around the Toronto scene, Sambuev, as well as Noritsyn, have always displayed the most professional, highest standards of at-the-board conduct and behavior. As for Sambuev's inaction during the game pause, it was the correct thing. An arbiter had just paused the clock and made a decision, a decision made according to the rules of chess, without Sambuev having complained or disputed anything one way or another. Again to my eyes, it was not clear at all to me that Sambuev was even aware what pieces he was holding and the reason for releasing them seemed very much to grab his own promotion Queen.

As stated previously
Article 12.6 of Fide
"It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. "
Bator violated this rule whether wittingly or unwittingly by hiding his Queen at a crucial moment that any player would find VERY ANNOYING under the circumstances and certainly would be a distraction to the opponent who is taking time searching for his queen rather then playing chess. Time to set a precedent so this never happens again.

---

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship - Sambuev on chess.com

UPDATE - July 5, 2017.

Sambuev responded to Chess.com that he thought the upside-down rook would be ruled an illegal move. "Since the arbiter was there I let him do his job," Sambuev told Chess.com.

When asked if he would have stopped the game and declared the piece a rook himself (had there been no arbiter), Sambuev responded that the game was only stopped as he was promoting his own queen on a8, thus inferring that he would not have declared the piece a rook without the arbiter's interjection.

He also reminded, as Chess.com did in the report, that he was holding the Black queen for many minutes before the incident, as well as other pieces.

"I didn't know that I was holding a queen in my hand," Sambuev said. "There were some pieces but I was focused on the game and had no idea what exactly was there. I learned there was a queen only from the video."

"The title is definitely important," he said. "I played in a World Cup in Norway four years ago after winning my second title. This is the third one."

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Come on, Alex. I don't disagree on the whole, but Bator knew very well he was hiding the Queen. And it is extremely poor sportsmanship to keep shut when the arbiter says 'the Queen was there'. Bator obviously knew it wasn't.

Maybe it was just adrenaline rushing high, but the ethical thing to do for Bator, regardless of what the rules say, would have been to admit he had removed the queen and say he's fine with a queen promotion.

Of course it would have been great sportsmanship for Sambuev to say that. I am not a die-hard-Sambuev fan or anything, I am just making observations. It all must have also taken place incredibly fast. It's also not so abundantly clear to me at all if he was aware of what he was holding. Two players are playing a huge-stakes game with the clock rapidly ticking. The arbiter appeared to me to intervene according to the rules, and Sambuev was the recipient of a gift from above. Not a gift from the arbiter, but a technicality against Noritsyn.
I don't want to paint any demons but... there's good sportsmanship and then there's (assuming Sambuev was unaware of any wrong-doing) ... "lets be friends and even though the arbiter caught you on a technicality, I'd like you to have a shot at a ~$10,000 value purse". Not happening.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Hi,


A minor argument can be made about the arbiter not providing an additional set of Queens, which should be done at the start of the game, never during (unless on request by a player). And that he/she may have been at fault for not doing so. Under no circumstance should an arbiter stop the flow of the game to remind a player he's holding a piece, even the potential promotion piece of the opponent. Neither should an arbiter start placing pieces as a hint that a promotion may occur.

The player who is about to promote should have stopped the clock upon not finding a Queen. As mentioned by Noritsyn, it's probably madness for anyone to have such composure and nerves to do so with no time on the clock. But that is the rule. I somehow doubt any arbiter would forfeit a player for pausing the clock a first time even if a Queen was present but the player had a rushed moment of blindness.

As the inverted Rook was placed, it appeared to me that the arbiter did the correct thing. Stopped the clock, did not pronounce it as an illegal move, inverted the Rook on its base and the game continued with the promoted piece being a Rook. We can discuss rules separately, whether they are ridiculous or not, somewhere else. Based on the video, as the arbiter paused the clock, it appeared as though there was a Queen available for promotion, as Sambuev had just released it. The arbiter was present and intervened at the only time he could and should. Taking into account that there was no video-replay, I have no idea what the arbiter could have done differently. Again, the only improvement would have been to have additional Queens available beside the board from move 1.
I don't think it's reasonable for the arbiter to be blamed for keeping track on what's in who's hands. There is a blitz game going on and the priority of an arbiter's eyes are on the board itself and clock.


---


Watching the video, Sambuev had captured and held pieces in his hand previously. It is not uncommon for players to do so, be it a nervous thing, being too involved in the game to put them on the table, whatever it is... I find it quite hard to believe that the Queen would have been deliberately withheld ~20 moves prior a hypothetical promotion. It also appeared to me that Sambuev released the Queen (along with some other pieces) in preparation to pick up his own promotion Queen piece for his upcoming move. It was not in any way obvious to me whether Sambuev placed the black Queen on the table to aid Noritsyn, to make it available, or even to disguise that he was holding it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sambuev wasn't even aware what type of pieces he was holding in his hand.
Some people in this forum are blaming Sambuev for holding the Queen and keeping his silence and because of it, he should be forfeited. This is completely ricidulous. Unless you want to make an official accusation about Sambuev maliciously and deliberetaly withholding the piece for unsportsmanship reasons. Again, that is insane. I could be wrong but from my personal observations around the Toronto scene, Sambuev, as well as Noritsyn, have always displayed the most professional, highest standards of at-the-board conduct and behavior. As for Sambuev's inaction during the game pause, it was the correct thing. An arbiter had just paused the clock and made a decision, a decision made according to the rules of chess, without Sambuev having complained or disputed anything one way or another. Again to my eyes, it was not clear at all to me that Sambuev was even aware what pieces he was holding and the reason for releasing them seemed very much to grab his own promotion Queen.


---


Several people seem to be beating up on the arbiter. Arbiters too make mistakes, no doubt. Some perhaps shouldn't even be arbiters. I don't know who this arbiter is, I don't care to attack or defend him, and I certainly don't know anything about his history as an arbiter. Looking at this chess incident, the only fault I could find was perhaps not having additional Queens beside the board before move 1. And I don't even rank this as such a serious fault. Without the benefit of video-replay, I very honestly can't think of what else the arbiter should or could have done. (Maybe in future we should use video-replay to aid arbiters, who knows). It's easy to blame the arbiters for what happens. The reality is... arbiters don't always know every little rule out there. The harsher reality is... there are scores of players (including professional ones) that are quite ignorant about a lot of these little FIDE rules. It's an arbiter's responsibility to know the rules, as is the players'! When you enter a chess tournament, there are rules of chess, there are tournament rules... An arbiter is not expected to cover the FIDE handbook at the opening ceremony of a tournament, any tournament.

Those of you who have some personal problems or vendettas against the arbiter, I can think of two recommendations, neither include beating up on him after some incident occurs.
1 - Do it when the tournament flyer is published and the event registered. Condemn the choice of arbiter publicly or with the CFC. Do it before anything happens, at the risk that nothing will go wrong or that the arbiter will do a good job. Do it at risk that you will look like a fool.
2 - Try it. Become an arbiter for a few events. See what it's about, for good or bad.

... in so many words... Man-up.


---


The only possible appeal I can see is as pointed out by Noritsyn, Sambuev intefeered with the flow of the game. It seems abundantly clear (to me) that it was not intentional. I am not even sure what a possible outcome of this appeal would be. I would be very upset at the prospect of a rematch if I was in Sambuev's shoes, having (currently) already won the championship.
The sad summary to my mind is, against all humane odds, Noritsyn had to pause the clock and didn't.


---


Some recommendations or improvements I can think of.
- Extra Queens / promotion pieces beside the board of a speed-contest.
- Reminder of rules from arbiters before a play-off, taking into account that the pace of the tournament and some of its rules have changed from the classical component of what was previously played (maybe this was or not done by the arbiter, although he was under no obligation to do so).
- Clear the spectarors. An arbiter should be sitting or standing directly in the prime viewing spot of the board and clock, not push his way through a mob.

These blitz play-offs are simply criminal. They degenerate our most prized tournament into chaos and poor quality chess. Someone on this thread had posted a link to the Zatonskiy - Krush USA Women's Armaggeddon. FIDE knock-outs also do this, which is quite unfortunate. But we don't have to. With the exception of Head-to-Head tie-break, tiebreaks on crosstables can be difficult to comprehend. Not just logistically, but how it justifies one person being so much further ahead than the next. Some factors outside HTH tiebreaks are not dependent on the players directly involved at all.
I have read and heard it a couple of times somewhere, the idea of blitz or armaggeddon be reversed with the rapids, or even the classical. Meaning... play the fast time control first, the winner of the blitz or Armaggeddon would have draw-odds in the longer time controls. That way the match is never tied no matter what the score is. Probably a lot of people would object but it seems interesting to me, and a way to place less stress and emphasis on the fastest possible time control.



Alex Ferreira

Hi Alex:

Thanks for a very lucid and on-point post. I wish Nikolay well with his appeal, because I don't think the result of this tournament is fair to him. But other than having another playoff (which I doubt Bator would agree to--and why should he?) I don't see how this is going to change except for possible rules/regulations forbidding blitz playoffs or rules/regulations specifying how such blitz playoffs were to be conducted (including having promotion pieces available).

Steve

P.S. I wouldn't have had a problem with the arbiter (or an assistant) bringing a pair of queens to the table at some point during the game once he realized that promotion on either/both sides was likely.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Come on, Alex. I don't disagree on the whole, but Bator knew very well he was hiding the Queen. And it is extremely poor sportsmanship to keep shut when the arbiter says 'the Queen was there'. Bator obviously knew it wasn't.

Maybe it was just adrenaline rushing high, but the ethical thing to do for Bator, regardless of what the rules say, would have been to admit he had removed the queen and say he's fine with a queen promotion.

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Hi,


A minor argument can be made about the arbiter not providing an additional set of Queens, which should be done at the start of the game, never during (unless on request by a player). And that he/she may have been at fault for not doing so. Under no circumstance should an arbiter stop the flow of the game to remind a player he's holding a piece, even the potential promotion piece of the opponent. Neither should an arbiter start placing pieces as a hint that a promotion may occur.

The player who is about to promote should have stopped the clock upon not finding a Queen. As mentioned by Noritsyn, it's probably madness for anyone to have such composure and nerves to do so with no time on the clock. But that is the rule. I somehow doubt any arbiter would forfeit a player for pausing the clock a first time even if a Queen was present but the player had a rushed moment of blindness.

As the inverted Rook was placed, it appeared to me that the arbiter did the correct thing. Stopped the clock, did not pronounce it as an illegal move, inverted the Rook on its base and the game continued with the promoted piece being a Rook. We can discuss rules separately, whether they are ridiculous or not, somewhere else. Based on the video, as the arbiter paused the clock, it appeared as though there was a Queen available for promotion, as Sambuev had just released it. The arbiter was present and intervened at the only time he could and should. Taking into account that there was no video-replay, I have no idea what the arbiter could have done differently. Again, the only improvement would have been to have additional Queens available beside the board from move 1.
I don't think it's reasonable for the arbiter to be blamed for keeping track on what's in who's hands. There is a blitz game going on and the priority of an arbiter's eyes are on the board itself and clock.


---


Watching the video, Sambuev had captured and held pieces in his hand previously. It is not uncommon for players to do so, be it a nervous thing, being too involved in the game to put them on the table, whatever it is... I find it quite hard to believe that the Queen would have been deliberately withheld ~20 moves prior a hypothetical promotion. It also appeared to me that Sambuev released the Queen (along with some other pieces) in preparation to pick up his own promotion Queen piece for his upcoming move. It was not in any way obvious to me whether Sambuev placed the black Queen on the table to aid Noritsyn, to make it available, or even to disguise that he was holding it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sambuev wasn't even aware what type of pieces he was holding in his hand.
Some people in this forum are blaming Sambuev for holding the Queen and keeping his silence and because of it, he should be forfeited. This is completely ricidulous. Unless you want to make an official accusation about Sambuev maliciously and deliberetaly withholding the piece for unsportsmanship reasons. Again, that is insane. I could be wrong but from my personal observations around the Toronto scene, Sambuev, as well as Noritsyn, have always displayed the most professional, highest standards of at-the-board conduct and behavior. As for Sambuev's inaction during the game pause, it was the correct thing. An arbiter had just paused the clock and made a decision, a decision made according to the rules of chess, without Sambuev having complained or disputed anything one way or another. Again to my eyes, it was not clear at all to me that Sambuev was even aware what pieces he was holding and the reason for releasing them seemed very much to grab his own promotion Queen.


---


Several people seem to be beating up on the arbiter. Arbiters too make mistakes, no doubt. Some perhaps shouldn't even be arbiters. I don't know who this arbiter is, I don't care to attack or defend him, and I certainly don't know anything about his history as an arbiter. Looking at this chess incident, the only fault I could find was perhaps not having additional Queens beside the board before move 1. And I don't even rank this as such a serious fault. Without the benefit of video-replay, I very honestly can't think of what else the arbiter should or could have done. (Maybe in future we should use video-replay to aid arbiters, who knows). It's easy to blame the arbiters for what happens. The reality is... arbiters don't always know every little rule out there. The harsher reality is... there are scores of players (including professional ones) that are quite ignorant about a lot of these little FIDE rules. It's an arbiter's responsibility to know the rules, as is the players'! When you enter a chess tournament, there are rules of chess, there are tournament rules... An arbiter is not expected to cover the FIDE handbook at the opening ceremony of a tournament, any tournament.

Those of you who have some personal problems or vendettas against the arbiter, I can think of two recommendations, neither include beating up on him after some incident occurs.
1 - Do it when the tournament flyer is published and the event registered. Condemn the choice of arbiter publicly or with the CFC. Do it before anything happens, at the risk that nothing will go wrong or that the arbiter will do a good job. Do it at risk that you will look like a fool.
2 - Try it. Become an arbiter for a few events. See what it's about, for good or bad.

... in so many words... Man-up.


---


The only possible appeal I can see is as pointed out by Noritsyn, Sambuev intefeered with the flow of the game. It seems abundantly clear (to me) that it was not intentional. I am not even sure what a possible outcome of this appeal would be. I would be very upset at the prospect of a rematch if I was in Sambuev's shoes, having (currently) already won the championship.
The sad summary to my mind is, against all humane odds, Noritsyn had to pause the clock and didn't.


---


Some recommendations or improvements I can think of.
- Extra Queens / promotion pieces beside the board of a speed-contest.
- Reminder of rules from arbiters before a play-off, taking into account that the pace of the tournament and some of its rules have changed from the classical component of what was previously played (maybe this was or not done by the arbiter, although he was under no obligation to do so).
- Clear the spectarors. An arbiter should be sitting or standing directly in the prime viewing spot of the board and clock, not push his way through a mob.

These blitz play-offs are simply criminal. They degenerate our most prized tournament into chaos and poor quality chess. Someone on this thread had posted a link to the Zatonskiy - Krush USA Women's Armaggeddon. FIDE knock-outs also do this, which is quite unfortunate. But we don't have to. With the exception of Head-to-Head tie-break, tiebreaks on crosstables can be difficult to comprehend. Not just logistically, but how it justifies one person being so much further ahead than the next. Some factors outside HTH tiebreaks are not dependent on the players directly involved at all.
I have read and heard it a couple of times somewhere, the idea of blitz or armaggeddon be reversed with the rapids, or even the classical. Meaning... play the fast time control first, the winner of the blitz or Armaggeddon would have draw-odds in the longer time controls. That way the match is never tied no matter what the score is. Probably a lot of people would object but it seems interesting to me, and a way to place less stress and emphasis on the fastest possible time control.



Alex Ferreira

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

It seems to me that there should have not have been a playoff. Way back in the Good ol' Days we had tie breaks. Now with the digital clocks and increments we have disasters.
Either have the players who tied play a proper 2 game match and if still tied then use tie breaks or call it what it was a tie. Two Canadian Champions and I believe Nikolay beat Bator so he gets the trophy and put them both on the Olympic team. Even the last world championship did not like the playoff terms. Bring Chess back to a respectable game and throw the Blitz where it belongs in the speed tournaments. Not to decide Canadian Champion.
This is really a No Brain situation.

Increments are not to blame here. But I agree the blitz part is problematic. In fact, a 5min. SD is even worse than 5+3s.

Increments are fantastic. If the increment is sufficient, like 30s for slow chess and 10s for rapid, it means that the position on the board and players skill is almost always more important than the time remaining on the clock.

I once won a B+N ending on a 3 sec. increment and 10 sec. remaining on my clock. Without increments, that game would have been a draw only because of the clock and not because of the position or the skill of the players involved.

On the whole, though, I agree with you that blitz chess is to blame here.