2017 Canadian Championship

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Controversy

Thanks, Sid. Your photo is frame 25732 (vlc does not give frame-by-frame access, but VirtualDub does) and confusingly shows Nikolay's clock as having 9 seconds left. That is an artifact of the way the clock's LCD works. His time had been 4 and by pressing (+3) his new time was 7, but the LCD works by changing its display from the top down. In this frame it has added a bar at the top to begin making the 7. Two frames later, it has erased the left and middle bars of the 4.

But yes, you have captured the drama. It's almost balletic how Bator has picked up the white queen as if to promote with check but then waves it in the vicinity of the clock. My shot is frame 25776 (1.5 seconds later) with the arbiter's cuffed arms hovering over the table. He actually stops the clock at 25809.

Another interesting frame is 25694 with Nikolay's hand over the rook at the side of the table, and Bator's left fist just beginning to reveal to the camera the pieces he's holding while his right fingers almost look as if they want to pick a piece out of the jumble in his other fist and hand Nikolay the queen. But no. Or maybe it's just the fingers reaching for a queen to promote to, but the brain overruling because it's the wrong colour. Fetch the right-coloured queen, put the wrong-coloured queen by the side of the board.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Do we have a scoresheet of blitz game 1?
video as well.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

There was posted a link to the game where we were told Bator resigned when the upside down rook became a queen.
Do you mean a different situation?

I didn't know Bator was involved in that situation. If he was and looked up the rule afterward then it would not be surprising that he was now familiar with the rule.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

This exact situation occurred in a Quebec tournament recently. Perhaps Bator was familiar with that decision. I don't know the details but I have seen all the reports from the organizer, the arbiter and the members of the National Appeals Committee and this fact was mentioned somewhere.

There was posted a link to the game where we were told Bator resigned when the upside down rook became a queen.
Do you mean a different situation?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

"I would bet that had there been no arbiter interference, Bator Sambuev would have played on understanding that the inverted rook was a Queen" PB

From the video this seems to be the case as he continues to play without protest. Of course it can be claimed that a protest could have been made whenever the inverted rook moved other than a rook. Somewhere in these threads I believe there is the claim that Mr. Sambuev said he knew the ref would default the inverted rook. How did he know this?

The end position before promotion is now famous. From a practical perspective, after the rook was a la fide uprighted, I'm speculating that trading rooks and going at it with N+2Ps Vs Q would have offered better drawing chances than with the r's on the board. What's your thought.

His response was 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."

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Somewhere in these threads I believe there is the claim that Mr. Sambuev said he knew the ref would default the inverted rook. How did he know this?

This exact situation occurred in a Quebec tournament recently. Perhaps Bator was familiar with that decision. I don't know the details but I have seen all the reports from the organizer, the arbiter and the members of the National Appeals Committee and this fact was mentioned somewhere.

[John Torrie]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

"I would bet that had there been no arbiter interference, Bator Sambuev would have played on understanding that the inverted rook was a Queen" PB

From the video this seems to be the case as he continues to play without protest. Of course it can be claimed that a protest could have been made whenever the inverted rook moved other than a rook. Somewhere in these threads I believe there is the claim that Mr. Sambuev said he knew the ref would default the inverted rook. How did he know this?

The end position before promotion is now famous. From a practical perspective, after the rook was a la fide uprighted, I'm speculating that trading rooks and going at it with N+2Ps Vs Q would have offered better drawing chances than with the r's on the board. What's your thought.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Controversy

Two questions:

1) If a player stops the clock, asks the arbiter for a Q, but does so before pushing the pawn to the 8th rank, is he then obligated to promote it on that move?

2) If a player pushes a pawn to the 8th rank, then stops the clock and asks for a Q, is he then obligated to promote it to a Q or can he stop the clock again and ask for a N, for example?

1. The player should not stop the clock before executing the promotion. He should be penalized as he did not touch a pawn and he can change his mind with promotion.

6.11.4 If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.

"6.11.2
A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available."
(not something like "would take place")

What is promotion:
3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’.
3.7.5.2 The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.
3.7.5.3 This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.


This part might be confusing that promotion is allowed to execute in various ways:
"4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured."

However that "HAS TAKEN PLACE" is only possible when the pawn is on the 8th rank and needs to be exchange. If the player has a required piece no need to stop the clock or move the pawn to 8th rank.

The language of rules could be improved to avoid misinterpretations.


2. He is not obligated to promote to an asked piece:
"4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion."
Though, the arbiter might warn (the lightest penalty or use more severe penalty) the player for stopping the clock too often.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

I am trying to find a FIDE (or CFC) rule which states that extra Queens are a requirement for a chess set. This one does not:

http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/St...ment_venue.pdf

[John Torrie]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

Apparently one of the pawn studies I posted below can be related to the current controversy regarding the Canadian Championship. Namely: white Ke3, Pc3, Ph4; black Ka3, Pb5, Pc4; white to play and win.

Supposing this was the position in the deciding blitz playoff game in which all the present conditions apply and after 1.h5 b4 2.h6 b3 3.h7 b2 4.h8(IR) ‘inverted rook’ b1(Q) 5.(IR)a8+ Kb3 6.(IR)b8+ Kxc3 7.(IR)xb1

…and before the word ‘stalemate’ can be spoken, the arbiter does his duty according to fide regulations and jumps in and uprights the rook. Play on, he says.

Suppose the un-stalemated player refuses.
Does he have a case anywhere else but in public opinion for arbiter interference?
What if the inverted rook player later claims that he knew the inverted rook was only a rook?
What does an inverted rook mean then?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

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

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

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

While it is not relevant to FIDE tournaments, the USCF book states that the upside-down rook is a queen (and it's not illegal move).

imho, the arbiter did not act properly when enforcing his ruling - shouts stop stop, tries to stop the clock and fails, points to a d1 square and says something what was not clear to at least Black player (Nikolay did not look to understand what was happening - "illegal move?") All kind of talks around (by whom? assistant arbiters?) Pointing to a queen what was not here on a moment of promotion.
While an arbiter should not place queen or other piece on the table during the game, he definitely needed to look at least for the queen on the table several moves before the promotion.

***

The Bator's hand under the table - look at the table width - it's not the largest table to keep hand on it. Even it has less space on his side than Noritsyn's one. (Following Sid logic it was a deliberate action to reduce the space to disturb the opponent LOL
Holding a piece - the queen is the best piece to squeeze during the tension - it fits perfectly in the hand. Not once or twice I needed to snatch it from opponents hands during blitz. Opponents did same to me too :)

***

Thinking about fault distribution:
IMHO
Bator - has not broken any specific rule. Though his action (holding a queen) snowballed the opponent.
Nikolay - the lack of knowledge of specific and rarely used rules ruined the game - possibility to stop the clock, simply leaving the pawn to enforce a queen. Made a mistake by promoting with two hands. Played with the "unofficial rule" - an upside-down rook as a queen.
Arbiter - acted almost by book, but failed to communicate properly his ruling. Created a skirmish around the table. Could say - he did not control the situation.

***

Most likely we will hear ( an I would love) from IA Aris Marghetis in the FIDE Abiters' Magazine. His approach to rules is quite interesting. Probably he and IA Hal Bond will not write here anything till the NAC will make a decision.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

You do not seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Except for very few issues when the arbiter must intervene, if there is any problem, a player must complain to the arbiter during the game. When the game is over, it is too late.

Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.

The arbiter intervened here on the basis of incorrect information. Furthermore it should be noted that when Nickolay was reaching for any piece for promotion Bator's right arm was in the way causing Nickolay to use both hands and could not even get to the clock properly to stop it in a timely way in compliance with the rule. Finally the intervention was based on a 337 page document that is the arbiters manual. It is not even reasonable to expect players to memorize this manual that is not part of the laws of chess. The above were based on other observations given to me by a FIDE arbiter.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

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

There were four rapids games to break a tie. imho, even that was too much - after grueling tight schedule of normal chess they were forced to play on the same day rapid games. How many were blitz games scheduled till armageddon?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.

There an interesting situation when a player mates/stalemates the opponent and nobody notices, the game progresses. Later somebody figures out that there was mate/stalemate. What is a result?:)

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Controversy

Bator is not only guilty of distracting his opponent but also of not informing the arbiter that he did, instead his actions would indicate that he covered up what he did.

You do not seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Except for very few issues when the arbiter must intervene, if there is any problem, a player must complain to the arbiter during the game. When the game is over, it is too late.

Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.