If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
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.
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.
Last edited by Ferdinand Supsup; Thursday, 6th July, 2017, 09:14 AM.
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?
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.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Thursday, 6th July, 2017, 11:07 AM.
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!
Last edited by Ferdinand Supsup; Thursday, 6th July, 2017, 01:22 PM.
Reason: Correct intention
In classical chess, that's fine. Get up on your opponent's time and grab a queen.
In a blitz tiebreak, the table with extra queens is completely useless.
This was a rapid tiebreak, not a blitz tiebreak. And any player not finding a Queen could stop the clock and go to the table with extra Queens to get one.
This was a rapid tiebreak, not a blitz tiebreak. And any player not finding a Queen could stop the clock and go to the table with extra Queens to get one.
I thought this game (the 6th tie-break game) was G5+3, which is Blitz, not Rapid.
I thought this game (the 6th tie-break game) was G5+3, which is Blitz, not Rapid.
Steve
From the FIDE website: A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.
From the FIDE website: A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.
G5+3 is more than 10 minutes.
60 times the increment of 3 seconds is 180 seconds (or 3 minutes). Added to the base time of 5 minutes, this is a total of 8 minutes per player - which is less than 10 minutes - i.e. "blitz". :-)
From the FIDE website: A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be completed in a fixed time of 10 minutes or less for each player; or the allotted time plus 60 times any increment is 10 minutes or less.
G5+3 is more than 10 minutes.
5min. +3 sec. is certainly more like blitz with an increment than rapid.
60 times the increment of 3 seconds is 180 seconds (or 3 minutes). Added to the base time of 5 minutes, this is a total of 8 minutes per player - which is less than 10 minutes - i.e. "blitz". :-)
Sorry Steve, Hugh and Mathieu, you are right of course, I did not see that the 10 minutes was "per player".
On the other hand, this does not change anything for the tiebreak, since the normal rules were used (not the rapid rules or blitz rules).
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.
Perhaps the tie-breaks would decide 2nd and 3rd in the event of a tie as there is a bonus for Olympiad team selection. Perhaps there were trophies.
Tweet
Comment