An Arbiter’s Notebook by Geurt Gijssen........

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An Arbiter’s Notebook by Geurt Gijssen........

    is the title of a column occurring regularly at www.chesscafe.com.

    This week, it is a very interesting column. Go to:
    http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

    to see the discussion on speed chess (or whatever it is called now!) and phones in the playing area.

  • #2
    Re: An Arbiter’s Notebook by Geurt Gijssen........

    I've been reading that column for some time now... very interesting. One trend I have noticed is that the questions are getting more obtuse and devious: what if a player touches his Knight and then his nose and then accidentally sneezes over two other pieces that have to be... yada yada.

    Then there was the over-the-top controversy about the Krush-Antonskih final armageddon game for the US Championship - complete with Youtube videos and freeze frame etc. [of course, no serious tournament should be decided by a game without increments and certainly never after a gruelling last round]

    The rules have become a complete jungle of words that only lawyers can appreciate. Even the conditions for a match (see Topthatoff and Krammit) are so detailed that it would make Fischer seem like an amateur whiner.

    I wonder when arbiters will have access to instant replay?
    ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: An Arbiter’s Notebook by Geurt Gijssen........

      Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
      I've been reading that column for some time now... very interesting. One trend I have noticed is that the questions are getting more obtuse and devious: what if a player touches his Knight and then his nose and then accidentally sneezes over two other pieces that have to be... yada yada.
      "Sometimes" the questions need to be devious, especially to show up logical inconsistencies in the rules. For example 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Qd1xf7 mate was once not so long ago, according to a strict interpretation of the rules, a legit game. Yes, the last move is illegal, but it is a mating move ... Did anybody ever try it in a real game? No. Did the rules need to be changed? Yes.

      Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
      Then there was the over-the-top controversy about the Krush-Antonskih final armageddon game for the US Championship - complete with Youtube videos and freeze frame etc. [of course, no serious tournament should be decided by a game without increments and certainly never after a gruelling last round]
      The money and the rating points were already decided. The playoff was for the "bragging rights" of being able to call oneself champion. I don't think that it has been sufficiently pointed out that the situation arose because Irina Krush mismanaged her time (the long long section of the game that comes before the video). In Blitz chess, you don't take 5 minutes to make the first 25-30 moves. She courted a random result, and she got it!

      Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
      The rules have become a complete jungle of words that only lawyers can appreciate. Even the conditions for a match (see Topthatoff and Krammit) are so detailed that it would make Fischer seem like an amateur whiner.
      I agree that, for the millions, the rules should be straightforward and have natural justice foremost. An example of how the rules have changed in the opposite direction: if in castling, you touch your rook first, your king will be stranded in the centre. That was not the case 30 years ago.

      Concerning world championship matches, the agreements have never been something you could write on an index card. Complexity gives something for their lawyers and chiefs of delegation to do, it is their rice bowl. I don't begrudge it.

      Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
      I wonder when arbiters will have access to instant replay?
      You asked. World Blitz Championship, Saint John 1988. Clock move, illegal move loses, kings could be captured. In a winning rook ending, Rafael Vaganian with K on say g3, plays f3-f4, and Kiril Georgiev (ouster of Kasparov!) plays R on a3 x K on g3. After a moment of shock, Vaganian says (in Russian) that he never pressed his clock. I'm not sure. I ask my assistant, Henry Chiu. He's not sure either. But the whole thing was on video. I run to the video room, but they show it on the big screen (I don't believe that pro sports referee reviews are shown to the stadium audiences today, but could easily be wrong. Anyway in this case the facts were not capable of interpretation.). The slo-mo replay shows that Vaganian reached for but never touched the button on his clock. Georgiev, it turns out, had taken the king too quickly. I rule that Vaganian could make a different move. He wins the game, and then wins the match. Vaganian advances to the final against Tal, but he cannot match Tal's magic.

      Comment

      Working...
      X