2017 Canadian Championship

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

And regardless of what happened here exactly and what will the ruling be, I think we should consider not using blitz games anymore for such an important tiebreak.

What's wrong with playing 2 games mini-match at rapid time control (15m + 10s) until a winner emerges? Each game last less than 1h and I could hardly see this thing going beyond 6 or 8 games.

Using blitz is essentially calling for extreme time pressure, unsportsmanlike behaviour and human errors.

[John Brown]

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.

[Frank Dixon]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

I believe that Sid Belzberg may have a very valid point. As the video shows, GM Sambuev, in effect, distracted his opponent, IM Noritsyn, by keeping the prospective promotion piece for Noritsyn, the Black queen, in his own hand. This may be a contravention of the specific FIDE rule governing player conduct. This circumstance made it unavailable for promotion, should the need arise, as it did. There was no valid reason for GM Sambuev to act this way, based on the rules and etiquette of chess. The arbiters could also have done better here, with extra queens for both players being made available at the table, for the playoff series of games; this would have avoided the mess.

I am very disappointed for Canadian chess, that such an important outcome should be determined this way.

I believe that if IM Noritsyn should choose to file an appeal with the National Appeals Committee, based on the circumstances, the FIDE rules, and the video evidence, combined with evidence of eyewitnesses, including other players, he would have a very good possibility of a successful outcome, overturning the result as it now stands. It would also make a very important precedent for chess, with applications worldwide.

I had a chess hustler in a New York City park pull this very same trick against me, summer of 2000. I was then rated ~2075, and was challenging this guy, probably 2200-2300 strength, who apparently lived by his chess winnings, to 5-minute games at $5 each. He was up five games to two against me, and when I went to queen a pawn in an advantageous position, I couldn't find the queen! Meanwhile, my clock was ticking down, and I lost on time. He gleefully showed me my prospective queen, hidden in his hand! "OK, if that's the way you want to play, I am out of here!" I paid up and left.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

There is no cause to blame Bator for this. No way it was done intentionally on his part

The fact that he may have done it unintentionally doesn't mean he's not to blame.

Furthermore, I agree with what others in this and the other thread have said: although he may not have intentionally obscured the piece, he intentionally remained silent about his obscuring the queen, once the arbiter had intervened. There's no excuse for that. It's patently unsportsmanlike.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

And what about an extra knight? Twenty some years ago I was on the black side of an Albin Counter Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3 Bb4+ and my opponent started to think. I went into the supply room and put a black knight in my shirt pocket. Play went 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4 exf2+ 7.Ke2 and out came the knight fxg1(N)+. My opponent resigned about three moves later. Of course this is a known trap, but I prepared myself for it by acquiring a knight beforehand. The game was 40 in 2, which game me lots of time.
If it were blitz the situation would be more pressing. In fact, when Mr. McKim sent his blitz rules for the 2016 NB Blitz Championship, I emailed him to ask if extra pieces, specifically queens and knights would be available. His response was that this was not necessary that the good will of the players would prevail.
Extra pieces, especially for a blitz playoff, should be available to the players.
Everyone I know who plays chess considers an inverted rook a queen. Recently I did up a chess cartoon with a distraught looking player advising his hand standing rook to “get back on your feet you fool, it’s a Savvedra!” I’m sure most people would get that joke.
Let us suppose the “McKim Rule” applies to the present controversy: that is to say “Let the good will of the players prevail.” My question would be: ‘Did the other fellow consider an inverted rook a queen?’

What you describe is just one reason why, for rated Rapid, Blitz, Armageddon matches, there needs to be in place beforehand for each player extra pieces (2 extra Queens, 1 extra of Bishop, Knight, Rook) of their own color. It may be that pawns get promoted before any piece of the promotion type have even been captured.

For the present controversy, I would bet that had there been no arbiter interference, Bator Sambuev would have played on understanding that the inverted rook was a Queen. The arbiter insisted that according to FIDE rules, it couldn't be a Queen and must instead be a Rook, and Bator unfortunately allowed that to happen.

[John Torrie]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

And what about an extra knight? Twenty some years ago I was on the black side of an Albin Counter Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4 4.e3 Bb4+ and my opponent started to think. I went into the supply room and put a black knight in my shirt pocket. Play went 5.Bd2 dxe3 6.Bxb4 exf2+ 7.Ke2 and out came the knight fxg1(N)+. My opponent resigned about three moves later. Of course this is a known trap, but I prepared myself for it by acquiring a knight beforehand. The game was 40 in 2, which game me lots of time.
If it were blitz the situation would be more pressing. In fact, when Mr. McKim sent his blitz rules for the 2016 NB Blitz Championship, I emailed him to ask if extra pieces, specifically queens and knights would be available. His response was that this was not necessary that the good will of the players would prevail.
Extra pieces, especially for a blitz playoff, should be available to the players.
Everyone I know who plays chess considers an inverted rook a queen. Recently I did up a chess cartoon with a distraught looking player advising his hand standing rook to “get back on your feet you fool, it’s a Savvedra!” I’m sure most people would get that joke.
Let us suppose the “McKim Rule” applies to the present controversy: that is to say “Let the good will of the players prevail.” My question would be: ‘Did the other fellow consider an inverted rook a queen?’

[Kerry Liles]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

...
GM Bator Sambuev: Canada's clutch player of the year!

ok, full disclosure... *that* did make me LOL

[Neil Frarey]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

What will the ruling be for players who bring fidget spinners to tournaments? They will no longer fidget with pieces.

John, I see what you did there ...lol!

GM Bator Sambuev: Canada's clutch player of the year!

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Norytsin's failure to follow the procedure to promote (stop the clock, call the arbiter) is also to blame

The problem is that with so little time available (2 seconds!) that normally (with more time) Norytsin would first scan the table to see if the Queen is there or not and then stop the clock for assistance. By concealing the Queen it wastes the last 2 seconds Norytsin has looking for a hidden Queen. His opponent has not only interfered with his wish to promote a Queen but the mere act of hiding the queen uses up time on his opponents clock before he presses to request assistance. If the Queen is not there to grab immediately time is wasted concluding this and stopping the clock to get assistance. Even if the entire process takes 1 second in this case it could be 50% of the remaining 2 seconds he has.
I have read that apparently in speed chess less scrupulous players have been known to hang on to their opponents Queen in a time scramble. I have had a few players do this to me in speed chess and it is very annoying. Some years ago there was a game in England with Colin Mcnabb and another player that was clutching his Queen in his hand. He screamed at him "you have my Queen!" and slammed the clock back down.
Bator's silence when the arbiters were under the mistaken impression that Queen's were available did not appear to be ethical. Initially you hear the arbiter saying it was his fault for not having a Queen and then the other one points to the Queen and says it is available pointing to the Queen Bator had just placed there moments earlier.
Bator interfered with his opponent being able to follow the rules of chess including the proper procedure to follow thus he should forfeit his game. 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.

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

To continue a game with one player having 2 seconds on his clock makes no sense to me. The exact original conditions cannot be duplicated anymore.
By holding Norytsin's queen in his hand, Bator interfered with his opponent wish to place it on the board.
Norytsin's failure to follow the procedure to promote (stop the clock, call the arbiter) is also to blame so overall the proper solution appears to play a new game.

I guess, that's the best solution I could think of. The engines evaluated the position as equal after both players promoted their pawns to queens if Black defends the check with Nd5. Anyone can be blamed, including the arbiters and players have faults. So, let's default and reset the game!

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

why did the organizers not provide chess sets with two extra queens?

Blaming organizer/arbiter for that leads nowhere.
There were enough queens (one of each color) available when the incident occurred.
It is just that one of the queens was hidden in Bator's hand...

[Jean Hébert]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Since there is a video record of the game, the final position, and the times on the clocks, I think the game should play on from where it left off with the exception that Nikolay is allowed to promote to a queen.

To continue a game with one player having 2 seconds on his clock makes no sense to me. The exact original conditions cannot be duplicated anymore.
By holding Norytsin's queen in his hand, Bator interfered with his opponent wish to place it on the board.
Norytsin's failure to follow the procedure to promote (stop the clock, call the arbiter) is also to blame so overall the proper solution appears to play a new game.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Is the first blitz game video available online?

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.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

I uploaded the full game video which I just got from Richard Berube.

Is the first blitz game video available online?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

What a mess.