|Jan-05-04|| ||PinkPanther: How on earth is this the English Opening? It seems more like some sort of a King's Pawn game to me. Or maybe some sort of a really strange Pirc Defense. In fact, white never even plays c4, he doesn't even move the c pawn at all until move 39. |
|Nov-02-04|| ||capablancakarpov: In this famous game Zurab played 25...Be5?? losing a rook.Then,he simply took the move back and continued playing.Later Zurab won the game and the European Championship,while Vladimir went on to finish second,so Zurabīs illegal manoeuvre was decisive. |
|Jul-18-05|| ||EmperorAtahualpa: <capablancakarpov> I remember Ray Keene suggesting the move that Azmaiparashvili took back was 20...Rd8. Are you sure you are right?|
|Dec-22-05|| ||TheAlchemist: <Emperor> I've also read, that he played 25...Be5??, but took it back and played 25...Rxd1.|
|May-11-07|| ||whiteshark: So this is Azmaiparashvili's famous "cheating" game, making him EU-Ch 2003.|
|Mar-01-11|| ||wordfunph: sidelight of the game from GM Genna Sosonko's book Smart Chip from St. Petersburg..|
Both grandmasters were fighting for the lead, and the encounter had huge sporting significance. In an ending that was favourable to him, Azmai picked up the bishop, intending to make a move with it instead of first exchanging rooks.
Malakhov recalled: "Seeing that the rooks were still on the board, he said something like, "Oh, first the exchange, of course." put his bishop back, took my rook, and the game
continued. I don't know what should have been done differently in this situation --- in Azmai's place, some might have resigned immediately, and in my place, some would have demanded
that he make a move with his bishop but I didn't want to ruin the logical development of the duel, so I didn't object when Azmai made a different move: the mistake was obviously nothing to do with chess! When we signed the score sheets, Azmai suggested to me that we consider the game a draw. After the game I was left with an unpleasant aftertaste, but that was due mainly to my own play."
|Nov-07-11|| ||hedgeh0g: The fact that he offered to call it a draw indicates that he <knew> what he did was wrong.
In the final position, Malakhov should have quietly reset the pieces and played 1.d4, commenting, "Oh, 1.d4, of course."|
|Nov-07-11|| ||Shams: <I didn't want to ruin the logical development of the duel> |
I feel this way a lot. A guy I play speed chess with won't let me give him backsies, even though I routinely beat him anyway.
A rule has evolved: if after he blunders, I'm able to whip the clock off the table before he punches it, the move does not count (here in Seattle we play "clock move" not "touch move" rules for blitz) and he is "allowed" (compelled) to make another. It adds an amusing element to the game.
|Mar-19-16|| ||vasparov19: wow. and against nakamura nepomniachtchi he said that even though nakamura castled with 2 hands, nakamura wins because , of some stupid reason. come on azmai!|
|Mar-16-18|| ||perfidious: The hand of the master strikes again.|