Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

John,

Your arguments are decent, at least the ones I had the time to read. Its a bit ridiculous how you carry on. Try to get to the key argument, I find you are worth reading.

You are right it was a second queen, fair point.

However, don't waste your time trying to be a kind of thought police on something where there is a video to look off of. You know where you can take that advice and shove it :). Its a free country and I never said Bator had intent. But he clearly interfered with the result of the game. Speculation is fine. The actions shown in the video are highly questionable - whether there was intent or not does not matter so much.

My opinion - oh great thought policeman! - is that you are too focused on the arbiter. Yes he screwed up "bigly" - but damn it man, he had help.

Despite decent and even quite correct arguments (times, number of queens, etc), you are being just as biased when you seek to curtail blame like this when there is clearly video evidence to the contrary.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I don't see the point at all, no one complained about Nikolay's behavior as distracting or annoying. I have found several incidents including at least three players on these forums alone myself included finding the witholding of a Queen to be VERY ANNOYING AND DISTRACTING.

Sid, knowing what you now know, if you were to organize a tournament how would you deal with GM Sambuev's registration to play in your tournament?

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I don't see the point at all, no one complained about Nikolay's behavior as distracting or annoying. I have found several incidents including at least three players on these forums alone myself included finding the witholding of a Queen to be VERY ANNOYING AND DISTRACTING.

I agree that fiddling with captured pieces is annoying - more so in a time pressure situation or Armageddon game.

Maybe a committee consisting of you (Sid), Vlad the Impaler and Ben the Lawyer can meet to provide a resolution?
*that* would be entertainment... ;)

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I agree that in the case of So writing notes, he had been warned previously and in that case what happened was predictable...

After all the back and forth on this issue (Sambuev - Noritisyn),
I am inclined to think this is just an epic failure to provide proper arbiter coverage and
the resulting kerfuffle is unfortunately not unexpected. There is a lot of blame that can
be splashed around and that makes the resolution very difficult.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

t will be interesting to see what the appeals committee says about this.

I know that at least one IA (not Canadian) has written that Nikolay's moving his captured pieces away from the board during Bator's moves could be construed as annoying and distracting behaviour. That seems harsh to me, but I can see his point.

I don't see the point at all, no one complained about Nikolay's behavior as distracting or annoying. I have found several incidents including at least three players on these forums alone myself included finding the witholding of a Queen to be VERY ANNOYING AND DISTRACTING.

[John Upper]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

The arbiters pointed out the availability of the Queen implying they would have taken the action done in the Mcgill open had a queen not been available.

That might be what they had intended the players to understand. I was not there to hear preround announcements, but I interpreted Louis's post about this to mean that the Arbiters were telling the players that spare Queens were available, and where the players could find them if necessary. That makes sense to me because the announcement was before the regular games during the tournament, when it is likely there were more games than spare Queens.

The location of a table with spare Queens seems less relevant to me for the play-offs, where the spare pieces can and should have been at the board. (but there's no reason to keep repeating this, I think)

The computer seems to think the position is equal if Queens are on the board.

I agree about the eval, though with so little time remaining, unless there's a perpetual, the side with more time has the practical advantage.

It's almost funny, but even though the objective evaluation of the position is irrelevant to the issues about rule following and sportsmanship, my guess is that we wouldn't be discussing this so intently if Nikolay's position had been clearly losing after ...d1=Q.

I still am of the opinion that knowingly or unknowingly withholding a queen clearly violates rule 12.6 of FIDE rules and the appeals committee could set an important precedent in warning players not to hang onto captured pieces, especially, unique ones like the queen.

It will be interesting to see what the appeals committee says about this.

I know that at least one IA (not Canadian) has written that Nikolay's moving his captured pieces away from the board during Bator's moves could be construed as annoying and distracting behaviour. That seems harsh to me, but I can see his point.

As I was reading this I immediately was led to recall the penalty for Wesley So for 'writing notes to himself on his score sheet' (!).

*That* seems trivial by comparison to not being able to find a Queen for promotion and yet the result for So was a loss in a very crucial game.

Agree that it seems trivial. But So had been previously warned by the Arbiter for doing the same thing in a previous round. I take that as an example of a good job by the Arbiter: fair warning for a first rules violation, penalty for second violation.

I'd be worried that writing the times on my scoresheet -- which I still do -- could be construed as helpful notes (which they are) and so against FIDE Article 12.3 a:
"During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse on another chessboard".

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

The arbiters pointed out the availability of the Queen implying they would have taken the action done in the Mcgill open had a queen not been available. The computer seems to think the position is equal if Queens are on the board. One idea is to declare the game either a draw or nullified and another game is played between the two. I still am of the opinion that knowingly or unknowingly withholding a queen clearly violates rule 12.6 of FIDE rules and the appeals committee could set an important precedent in warning players not to hang onto captured pieces, especially, unique ones like the queen.

As I was reading this I immediately was led to recall the penalty for Wesley So for 'writing notes to himself on his score sheet' (!).

*That* seems trivial by comparison to not being able to find a Queen for promotion and yet the result for So was a loss in a very crucial game.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I think you and I have very different ideas about what is important in Nikolay's post about the promotion in Sambuev-Sturt.

It seems to me that you think it is important because it might show a pattern of unsporting behaviour by Sambuev.
I think it is important because it shows that Arbiters have made different decisions in very similar cases (about upside down Rook promotions).




As Egis politely suggested, there is no reason to think that "the queen went missing in another Sambuev game".

Readers who follow the link which Nikolay gave to the game Sambuev-Sturt (http://chess.ca/newsfeed/node/326)
will see that at move 53 Sturt promoted a pawn to put a second black Queen on the board.

In my experience of weekend Swiss tournaments in Canada, it is rare to find spare Queens at board, so I would assume that there was no spare Queen in the Sambuev-Sturt game. Unless you know for a fact that there was a spare Queen beside the board, you should not assert or even speculate that it might be part of a "pattern" in Sambuev's games.




This misses the point of my post entirely. I wasn't trying to "shift the focus the arbiter again", but to point out that there are two legitimate rulings in this and similar cases.

Nikolay referred to a game at the McGill Open where the TD/Arbiter made a different decision when a pawn was promoted to an upside down Rook:

• in the McGill Open the Arbiter changed the upside down Rook to a Queen
• at the 2017 Canadian Championship the Arbiter insisted that it remain a Rook.

I quoted the specific rules I did, not (I hope) "somewhat blindly", but because they show that both Arbiters could correctly claim they were following the rules even though they made different decisions in similar cases. As I interpret their actions, the McGill Arbiter followed rule 12.2, and the Canadian Championship Arbiter followed rule 12.1.




For me, the key point is not that the Arbiter was more (or better) able to handle the incident, but that the two different ways of handling it are consistent with the FIDE rules and recent tournament practice in Canada.

As I said at both the start and end of my post, I'd personally prefer Arbiters to follow 12.2 when it conflicts with 12.1; but as I noted at the end of the post, many chess players would prefer the opposite.


FWIW, it may be best if FIDE does not specify which of these two rules dominates, since Arbiters who prefer 12.1 may well be people who would be better off not using the discretion given by 12.2.

----------------------------[re: other post]--------------------



It may be a key piece of information, but what does it show/mean?

Does the long(ish) time Sambuev held the Queen suggest to you that he is more or less blameworthy?

If Sambuev had picked up the Queen a few seconds (or moves) before Nikolay was about to promote then I would interpret that to mean he was deliberately attempting to interfere with his opponent's play. But that's not what he did: Sambuev had the Queen in his hand from the moment he captured it, long before promotion was on the horizon.

IMHO, oddly, the longer Sambuev held the Queen, the more it seems (to me) that it was an unintentional/nervous action.



Do you think intent matters, or almost does not matter?

I think for most of the rules intent does not matter, only actions do. But for other rules -- e.g. penalties for bringing the game into disrepute -- intent does matter. There have been two basic streams of opinion and commentary on this incident, one of which emphasizes actions and one which emphasizes intent:

• one which says that Sambuev did not break any rules and Noritsyn was correctly ruled to have promoted the pawn to a Rook,
• the other which says that Sambuev intentionally did something wrong (holding the pieces, not speaking up when the Arbiter was ruling) and should be penalized for it.

The problem with intent is that we're all just making (semi)informed guesses about intent based on our observations about behaviour. This is why I have been so picky about trying to correctly determine the facts about the players's actions, and to describe them as neutrally as possible. For example:

• Sambuev held a bishop below table-top level, so it is factually inaccurate to say that the only piece he held below the table was the Queen;
• I use the word "holding" rather than the word "hiding", since the latter is ambiguous between intentionally and unintentionally keeping from view.

A couple of points about intent:

• I don't think it's possible to reliably infer intent from behaviour, especially not when the behaviour occurs under such stressful circumstances.
• Stress: with all the focus on the video, it might be worth reminding people that both players had:
  • played 9 rounds over 5 days,
  • played must-win final-round games that morning,
  • played four 15+10 rapid tie-break games that afternoon,
  • played one blitz tie-break (5+3), and
  • were still playing their second blitz tie-break game.
  
  Both players are experienced professionals, but even the world's best will expect their decision-making to fail them under such stress. (Kramnik said this much about himself Leuven this week)
  
• This is why I don't infer that Nikolay's acceptance of the Arbiter's ruling during the game was a sign that he in any way knew (consciously or unconsciously) that he had made a mistake by not stopping the clock to ask the Arbiter for a Queen (a rule I believe it was Nikolay's responsibility to know).

The arbiters pointed out the availability of the Queen implying they would have taken the action done in the Mcgill open had a queen not been available. The computer seems to think the position is equal if Queens are on the board. One idea is to declare the game either a draw or nullified and another game is played between the two. I still am of the opinion that knowingly or unknowingly withholding a queen clearly violates rule 12.6 of FIDE rules and the appeals committee could set an important precedent in warning players not to hang onto captured pieces, especially, unique ones like the queen.

[John Upper]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I think you and I have very different ideas about what is important in Nikolay's post about the promotion in Sambuev-Sturt.

It seems to me that you think it is important because it might show a pattern of unsporting behaviour by Sambuev.
I think it is important because it shows that Arbiters have made different decisions in very similar cases (about upside down Rook promotions).

It is amazing that here Nikolay... is pointing out that there might be a pattern or precedent.
...
I think this storey most importantly highlights that the queen went missing in another Sambuev game. That the arbiter was more able to handle the incident is less relevant.

As Egis politely suggested, there is no reason to think that "the queen went missing in another Sambuev game".

Readers who follow the link which Nikolay gave to the game Sambuev-Sturt (http://chess.ca/newsfeed/node/326)
will see that at move 53 Sturt promoted a pawn to put a second black Queen on the board.

In my experience of weekend Swiss tournaments in Canada, it is rare to find spare Queens at board, so I would assume that there was no spare Queen in the Sambuev-Sturt game. Unless you know for a fact that there was a spare Queen beside the board, you should not assert or even speculate that it might be part of a "pattern" in Sambuev's games.

Then John Upper goes on to somewhat blindly start going through the rules, trying to shift the focus to the arbiter again.

This misses the point of my post entirely. I wasn't trying to "shift the focus the arbiter again", but to point out that there are two legitimate rulings in this and similar cases.

Nikolay referred to a game at the McGill Open where the TD/Arbiter made a different decision when a pawn was promoted to an upside down Rook:

• in the McGill Open the Arbiter changed the upside down Rook to a Queen
• at the 2017 Canadian Championship the Arbiter insisted that it remain a Rook.

I quoted the specific rules I did, not (I hope) "somewhat blindly", but because they show that both Arbiters could correctly claim they were following the rules even though they made different decisions in similar cases. As I interpret their actions, the McGill Arbiter followed rule 12.2, and the Canadian Championship Arbiter followed rule 12.1.

That the arbiter was more able to handle the incident is less relevant.

For me, the key point is not that the Arbiter was more (or better) able to handle the incident, but that the two different ways of handling it are consistent with the FIDE rules and recent tournament practice in Canada.

As I said at both the start and end of my post, I'd personally prefer Arbiters to follow 12.2 when it conflicts with 12.1; but as I noted at the end of the post, many chess players would prefer the opposite.


FWIW, it may be best if FIDE does not specify which of these two rules dominates, since Arbiters who prefer 12.1 may well be people who would be better off not using the discretion given by 12.2.

----------------------------[re: other post]--------------------

I will recheck the video, but missing twenty seconds on the hidden queen is hardly a big deal.
It was still (minus your twenty seconds) under the table for almost three minutes. That is a key piece of information.

It may be a key piece of information, but what does it show/mean?

Does the long(ish) time Sambuev held the Queen suggest to you that he is more or less blameworthy?

If Sambuev had picked up the Queen a few seconds (or moves) before Nikolay was about to promote then I would interpret that to mean he was deliberately attempting to interfere with his opponent's play. But that's not what he did: Sambuev had the Queen in his hand from the moment he captured it, long before promotion was on the horizon.

IMHO, oddly, the longer Sambuev held the Queen, the more it seems (to me) that it was an unintentional/nervous action.

As for your argument, the minutia you extoll could be more easily summed up in that you believe Bator had no real intent. At least that's what your abbreviated statement above speaks to me. I am not so sure you are correct here. In fact without knowing Bator's thoughts, you are just guessing. I never said he had intent. But it almost does not matter here, as he has taken away the piece from reach and sight.

Do you think intent matters, or almost does not matter?

I think for most of the rules intent does not matter, only actions do. But for other rules -- e.g. penalties for bringing the game into disrepute -- intent does matter. There have been two basic streams of opinion and commentary on this incident, one of which emphasizes actions and one which emphasizes intent:

• one which says that Sambuev did not break any rules and Noritsyn was correctly ruled to have promoted the pawn to a Rook,
• the other which says that Sambuev intentionally did something wrong (holding the pieces, not speaking up when the Arbiter was ruling) and should be penalized for it.

The problem with intent is that we're all just making (semi)informed guesses about intent based on our observations about behaviour. This is why I have been so picky about trying to correctly determine the facts about the players's actions, and to describe them as neutrally as possible. For example:

• Sambuev held a bishop below table-top level, so it is factually inaccurate to say that the only piece he held below the table was the Queen;
• I use the word "holding" rather than the word "hiding", since the latter is ambiguous between intentionally and unintentionally keeping from view.

A couple of points about intent:

• I don't think it's possible to reliably infer intent from behaviour, especially not when the behaviour occurs under such stressful circumstances.
• Stress: with all the focus on the video, it might be worth reminding people that both players had:
  • played 9 rounds over 5 days,
  • played must-win final-round games that morning,
  • played four 15+10 rapid tie-break games that afternoon,
  • played one blitz tie-break (5+3), and
  • were still playing their second blitz tie-break game.
  
  Both players are experienced professionals, but even the world's best will expect their decision-making to fail them under such stress. (Kramnik said this much about himself Leuven this week)
  
• This is why I don't infer that Nikolay's acceptance of the Arbiter's ruling during the game was a sign that he in any way knew (consciously or unconsciously) that he had made a mistake by not stopping the clock to ask the Arbiter for a Queen (a rule I believe it was Nikolay's responsibility to know).

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

There's a few of those 'nervous habits' ... most notable is the almost ubiquitous hand stuck to the face habit.

Here's a great gif from Kevin's website...

http://www.spraggettonchess.com/wp-c...irst_Video.gif

...notice how GM 'Clutch' clearly hides the Queen and the rest of the pieces remain unhidden!

Smoooooooooooth!

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

There was a special table with 20 White Queens and 20 Black Queens, and this was clearly stated before round 1.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I do tend to fidget with pawns during my games. Sometimes a bishop. But it would never occur to me to hide a queen, especially when a promotion is coming up. That's just common decency.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

There is a (16 minute) video of Bator doing a post-mortem with Michael Dougherty in 2013. You will notice that Bator is continually fiddling with captured pieces (most notably after the 4:20 mark) when he is not using that hand to move pieces. At one point, he has five pieces (both colours) which he gas in and out of his right hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlsyAl-oRXU

So what do other GM's do in a blitz game? Here are Carlsen and Nakamura playing blitz this week. No captures for a while, but - sure enough - around the 8-minute mark, Carlsen starts fidgiting with a couple of captured P's before placing them to the side. Then Nakamura does the same thing. Neither ever held Queens, but Carlsen had a Rook in his hand for a couple of moves. It must be a nervous habit of all chessplayers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c52UC75RDQc

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

The arbiter missed the opportunity to point that moves are done with one hand. Or maybe he told in French? LOL ( The promotion was executed with two hands...)

IIRC you can use two hands when promoting. (I may be mistaken and/or and the rule may have changed since I came to that understanding.)

Steve

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Controversial Finish To Canadian Championship

I think you are dead wrong on this. He had his arms crossed with the bishop. There was never any under the table placement.

What time frame are you referring to?

When Bator was holding the bishop I said his hand was "below table level," which it was for almost the entire time he was holding the bishop. You seem to be getting sidetracked by the bishop.