2017 Canadian Championship

[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?’

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

---

[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

[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.