0-0 is also very possible

[Victor Plotkin]

FIDE's decision on the disputed game between Dubov and Nepomniachtchi
In round 11, Daniil Dubov was playing as White against Ian Nepomniachtchi. The game lasted 13 moves: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nd4 Nd5 3.Nb3 Nb6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Ne4 Ne5 6.Ng5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Ng1 Ng8 9.Nc5 Nc4 10.Na4 Na5 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.Nb1 Nb8 13.Nf3, and they agreed a draw.
The arbiters analyzed the moves, and, after round 12, the Chief Arbiter of the tournament, Ivan Syrovy, made the decision to reduce the points both players scored in the game. Reasoning his decision, Chief Arbiter Syrovy said: "In my eyes both players are responsible for it, I consider they prearranged the result of the game. My opinion is based on the moves they played".
Grandmasters Ian Nepomniachtchi and Daniil Dubov objected to the decision, prompting a referral to the Appeals Committee.
Late in the evening of December 29/30, local time in Samarkand, the Appeals Committee unanimously voted (3/3) to reject Ian Nepomniachtchi's appeal and uphold the decision made by the arbiter, Ivan Syrovy.
Following this decision, the arbiters published the pairings for round 13 of the Open and updated the standings.
The rounds continue as planned on December 30, starting at 2PM local time.

[Aris Marghetis]

For those who might not know, Ivan is also the Chair of the FIDE Arbiters' Commission. I applaud this.

[Neil Frarey]

So, it begs the question ... Is a prearranged draw / result a form of cheating?

[Alex Ferreira]

Hi,


Neil, it's not a form of cheating, in the conventional sense. Pre-arranging a result certainly brings the game, and competition into disrepute, and should probably be seen as a form of cheating. It is cheating in the competition, even if the moves themselves follow the laws of chess.
Is it different than to play out some forced line from the opening to the endgame, 30+ moves of theory that everyone knows: "draw" ? Open for debate. And yes, many people do this.
What Dubov - Nepo did is certainly a lot more "in your face". In this particular case, to makes matters worse, neither of them earned the draw, they wanted to collect a half-point by shaking hands.

Either way, it's shameful behavior. This is not what a chess game, or competition, is supposed to be about.


I've been involved at tournaments where two scenarios happened:

- a couple of players played e4 e5 Ke2 Ke7 Ke1 Ke8 and proceeded to play the game "normally", after having given up the right to castle.

- a couple of players played much like Dubov - Nepo, swapped the knights' to each others' original squares (b1 to g1, g1 to b1, and black same) and then proceeded to play the game "normally" as if move 20 or whatever is now move 1.

The games I witnessed were done by trolls, clearly bored, or wanting to try their own variant, whatever. They both continued the games and fought hard for the points.
The infractions were only found out well after the games were finished, looking at the game scores, and players were warned (following day or even later). The results were not changed.


The difference between the cases above and Dubov-Nepo was that the World Blitz Championship game was agreed to draw.

It is still very much wrong. It's disrespectful to the game, rules of the game, competition, etc... It is also, in games with increment, a way to pick up significant amount of time on the clock. In the case of the knights' dance, if there were a secondary time control, players would have just halved the # of moves needed to reach time control (for example).
Imagine Dubov - Nepo get away with it, in what is expected to be a serious game, in a serious competition. A year later, anytime there's an Armageddon or blitz time control with increment being only added after move 60, knight dancing for the first few dozen moves becomes mainstream.


Either way, this kind of game isn't usually played without both players agreeing in advance - making it very much illegal in the rules of chess tournament play. An arbiter doesn't need to ask players if this was agreed or not in advance, when it's obvious that it takes two to tango. The same players, involved in any of the cases above (Dubov, Nepo, or the 4 different parties I've seen do this in local Toronto tournaments), would not have done this in a random game, against an unknown opponent. Especially the knights' dance. An individual player, shifting the king 2-3 times in the opening in the first 3-4 moves, while the opponent does not copy, is not necessarily cheating, since there was nothing pre-arranged. The player is perhaps, being disrespectful (ie bong-cloud opening), but that's something else.
Yes there may be odd moments where, without prior agreement, both players may be in trolling mood and copy the opponent who happens to be their friend, and the result ends up being very similar. Spontaneously. Either way, shameful behavior.

Kudos to the arbiter in forfeiting Dubov - Nepo and setting the example.


Alex Ferreira

[Roger Patterson]

Hi,


Neil, it's not a form of cheating, in the conventional sense. Pre-arranging a result certainly brings the game, and competition into disrepute, and should probably be seen as a form of cheating. It is cheating in the competition, even if the moves themselves follow the laws of chess.
Is it different than to play out some forced line from the opening to the endgame, 30+ moves of theory that everyone knows: "draw" ? Open for debate. And yes, many people do this.
What Dubov - Nepo did is certainly a lot more "in your face". In this particular case, to makes matters worse, neither of them earned the draw, they wanted to collect a half-point by shaking hands.

Either way, it's shameful behavior. This is not what a chess game, or competition, is supposed to be about.


I've been involved at tournaments where two scenarios happened:

- a couple of players played e4 e5 Ke2 Ke7 Ke1 Ke8 and proceeded to play the game "normally", after having given up the right to castle.

- a couple of players played much like Dubov - Nepo, swapped the knights' to each others' original squares (b1 to g1, g1 to b1, and black same) and then proceeded to play the game "normally" as if move 20 or whatever is now move 1.

The games I witnessed were done by trolls, clearly bored, or wanting to try their own variant, whatever. They both continued the games and fought hard for the points.
The infractions were only found out well after the games were finished, looking at the game scores, and players were warned (following day or even later). The results were not changed.


The difference between the cases above and Dubov-Nepo was that the World Blitz Championship game was agreed to draw.

It is still very much wrong. It's disrespectful to the game, rules of the game, competition, etc... It is also, in games with increment, a way to pick up significant amount of time on the clock. In the case of the knights' dance, if there were a secondary time control, players would have just halved the # of moves needed to reach time control (for example).
Imagine Dubov - Nepo get away with it, in what is expected to be a serious game, in a serious competition. A year later, anytime there's an Armageddon or blitz time control with increment being only added after move 60, knight dancing for the first few dozen moves becomes mainstream.


Either way, this kind of game isn't usually played without both players agreeing in advance - making it very much illegal in the rules of chess tournament play. An arbiter doesn't need to ask players if this was agreed or not in advance, when it's obvious that it takes two to tango. The same players, involved in any of the cases above (Dubov, Nepo, or the 4 different parties I've seen do this in local Toronto tournaments), would not have done this in a random game, against an unknown opponent. Especially the knights' dance. An individual player, shifting the king 2-3 times in the opening in the first 3-4 moves, while the opponent does not copy, is not necessarily cheating, since there was nothing pre-arranged. The player is perhaps, being disrespectful (ie bong-cloud opening), but that's something else.
Yes there may be odd moments where, without prior agreement, both players may be in trolling mood and copy the opponent who happens to be their friend, and the result ends up being very similar. Spontaneously. Either way, shameful behavior.

Kudos to the arbiter in forfeiting Dubov - Nepo and setting the example.


Alex Ferreira

Or Ulhmann vs Rogoff. 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Ng1 Bg7 4.Qa4 0-0 5.Qxd7 Qxd7 6.g4 Qxd2+ 7.Kxd2 Nxg4 8.b4 a5 9.a4 Bxa1 10.Bb2 Nc6 11.Bh8 Bg7 12.h4 axb4 (draw agreed)

uhlmann initially offered a draw at move one, the arbiters demanded a full game and this is what they got. The arbiters still were unhappy and demanded a replay for which he did not show up and was forfeited. I have read that Rogoff just went with the flow so no prior agreement, just two players happy with a draw.

[David Ottosen]

Sometimes I think I have hubris and confidence, but having the nerve to file an appeal after playing this "game" is a whole extra level.

[Peter McKillop]

FIDE's decision on the disputed game between Dubov and Nepomniachtchi
In round 11, Daniil Dubov was playing as White against Ian Nepomniachtchi. The game lasted 13 moves: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nd4 Nd5 3.Nb3 Nb6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Ne4 Ne5 6.Ng5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Ng1 Ng8 9.Nc5 Nc4 10.Na4 Na5 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.Nb1 Nb8 13.Nf3, and they agreed a draw. ....

Doesn't FIDE have a rule regarding the sanctioning of players whose actions bring the game into disrepute? If they don't, they need one. These clowns, Dubov and Nepo, as 2700+ players, are likely making a decent living from the game. With his share of the prize money from two recent world championships, Nepo is probably doing particularly well. But they treat the game with disrespect.

A question: in the case of a draw by three-fold repetition, is the initial position eligible for consideration? Could the clowns have drawn after 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Ng8 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Ng1 and Black announces he's going to play Ng8 and claims the draw?

[Kerry Liles]

Sometimes I think I have hubris and confidence, but having the nerve to file an appeal after playing this "game" is a whole extra level.

LOL - most likely they didn't realize it was being video captured by ChessBase India... complete with audio!

[Peter McKillop]

FIDE's decision on the disputed game between Dubov and Nepomniachtchi
In round 11, Daniil Dubov was playing as White against Ian Nepomniachtchi. The game lasted 13 moves: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Nd4 Nd5 3.Nb3 Nb6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Ne4 Ne5 6.Ng5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nf6 8.Ng1 Ng8 9.Nc5 Nc4 10.Na4 Na5 11.Nc3 Nc6 12.Nb1 Nb8 13.Nf3, and they agreed a draw. .......

Could the organizers/sponsors of the Toronto Candidates Tournament be wondering if such scintillating chess will be played at their tournament? I mentioned in another post that these players treated the game with disrespect. But it goes much further than that. This was no 'grandmaster draw'. These players disrespected the general chess-playing(& paying) public, and sponsors (like the Scheinberg family), and also the countless volunteers who every year donate thousands and thousands of hours to making successful tournaments in the mid and lower ranges of the chess pyramid. FIDE's response was (to be kind) weak-kneed.

[Neil Frarey]

Could the organizers/sponsors of the Toronto Candidates Tournament be wondering if such scintillating chess will be played at their tournament? I mentioned in another post that these players treated the game with disrespect. But it goes much further than that. This was no 'grandmaster draw'. These players disrespected the general chess-playing(& paying) public, and sponsors (like the Scheinberg family), and also the countless volunteers who every year donate thousands and thousands of hours to making successful tournaments in the mid and lower ranges of the chess pyramid. FIDE's response was (to be kind) weak-kneed.

Precisely.

[Peter McKillop]

This quote comes from a recent interview of Vlastimil Hort available at chessbase.com:
****************
Interviewer: How do you see professional chess today, with many online tournaments, rapid chess and blitz events, compared to the past?
Hort: Impersonal, boring and superfluous!

https://en.chessbase.com/post/vlasti...interview-2024
****************
Clearly GM Hort has not experienced the worldwide excitement generated by the recent Dubov-Nepo game or the thrill of watching GM Firouzja round up a group of 2400 players for the slaughter!! Congratulations to FIDE for running a top of the line sporting organization.

[Ben Z]

I find this arbiter's decision to be very troubling because the evidence used to arrive at the result was circumstantial.

It would be nice to know whether both of the players were directly asked whether the game was pre-arranged? Asking questions is a basic feature of fact finding.

If the players were asked, and both answered "no the game was not pre-arranged", what basis does the arbiter have to make a decision?

I assume the players were not asked whether the game was pre-arranged because the arbiter confirmed that he asked both of the players whether the game was played (which the players independently confirmed). But I cannot be sure.

And so, regrettably, the evidence used by the arbiter for a decision was circumstantial.

If the evidence used was not circumstantial, then the arbiter decided the result based on a 'feeling."

Here is an example of a result based on circumstantial evidence which highlights the problem with this decision. Two people are in a locked room with a gun. The door opens, one person comes out. The other person is dead by gunshot. What happened? A conclusion of murder without more evidence is one based on circumstantial evidence (it could have been death by suicide).

To sum, for an arbiter to make a finding based on circumstantial evidence is very bad.

This highlights a serious problem with FIDE arbiters. Some of them are not trained to make decisions.

Dear FIDE arbiters. Do better.