|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-12-06
 | | Resignation Trap: A very recent example of a drawn endgame of R vs N is Bareev vs Shirov, 2006 . |
 |
May-12-06
 | | acirce: <where one of the sides tries to win using purely time-pressure> This is of course the relevant part, and it applies even if the position is NOT theoretically drawn. <a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim. b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.> http://www.fide.com/official/handbo... |
|
May-12-06
| | acirce: Fascinating that both players blundered more than once in this "simple" ending. 79..Kf1??  instead of 79..Nh4+ = is particularly interesting, because the "principle" tells you to keep your knight in contact with your king, while in reality here you have to move the knight away. If 79..Nh4+ 80.Ke2 you can't move it back into contact with 80..Ng2?? but need to play 80..Kg2 or 80..Kh2. |
|
May-12-06
| | trumbull0042: Hey what was 19...Ne8?! all about? Was there nothing Bacrot could do to save his pawn? |
|
May-12-06
| | catfriend: <acirce: <where one of the sides tries to win using purely time-pressure> This is of course the relevant part, and it applies even if the position is NOT theoretically drawn.> Why isn't the "drawn" part relevant?! <cannot be won by normal means>, as you said. |
|
May-12-06
 | | tamar: If Bacrot had claimed a draw after the pawn promoted, the arbiters would have a very difficult decision to make. But I don't think he did, and the mistakes by both sides after that meant they were moving in and out of theoretically drawn positions. For example, if Bacrot wanted to claim a draw before making his 89th move, the arbiters would find that 89...Nd7 draws in all lines, but every other move leads to forced mate. A real gray area. Perhaps a compromise solution would be to add a forced increment in theoretical positions. |
|
May-12-06
 | | keypusher: I assume this is the rule being quoted:
<Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1
A `quickplay finish` is the last phase of a game, when all the (remaining) moves must be made in a limited time. 10.2
If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter. a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.
b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.
c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes thinking time.
d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.> The term "normal means" is not defined in the rules, but it appears that it should be interpreted broadly to encompass anything beyond the most transparent attempt to win on time by shuffling one's pieces. The previous section of the rules, Article 9 on draws, only allows a draw to be claimed for threefold repetition, the 50-move rule and lack of mating material. (The latter is how I interpret Section 9.6:
<The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.> Section 9.6 would certainly not apply to the Kamsky-Bacrot ending. Given that both sides erred repeatedly during the R v. N ending, and that Kamsky won by trapping his opponent's knight (and not on time), the ending would seem to fall comfortably within the scope of "trying to win by normal means", and I am sure an arbiter would agree. I feel sorry for Bacrot, but I don't think Kamsky did anything wrong. |
|
| May-12-06 | | MTal: <catfriend> Clock management is part of the game. You can lose on time even in a _won_ position (e.g., Ivantchuk in Linares). You can't just stop the clock and say "I have a better position". |
|
May-12-06
| | acirce: <Why isn't the "drawn" part relevant?! <cannot be won by normal means>, as you said.> It says <the final position cannot be won by normal means, OR that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means.> The position could be unclear, objectively winning, objectively losing.. no matter what, if you just make random moves trying to win on time, your opponent can claim a draw. <If Bacrot had claimed a draw after the pawn promoted, the arbiters would have a very difficult decision to make.> Not at all. |
|
May-12-06
| | catfriend: <MTal> Apparently, often you can:) <Acirce> Yeah, I used the first part of the OR. Kamsky was making sufficients attempts, but the position cannot be won by normal means. All very clear, I think. <keypusher> Sure, Kamsky isn't accused of anything! I erred when I used the word "Nasty", I forgot he can't suggest any draw.. 9.6 is about the cases where a player can call the game drawn. Here, we have a case where the arbiter can do it. |
|
May-12-06
| | tamar: <<If Bacrot had claimed a draw after the pawn promoted, the arbiters would have a very difficult decision to make.> Not at all.> What would that non-difficult decision be? Play on, with only a minute left? Or would a fair decision be, award extra time, as you showed FIDE rules
require in some cases? |
|
May-12-06
| | trumbull0042: Seems like someone is slacking off over at the Chessgames office. The game still isn't up!! |
|
May-12-06
| | acirce: <but the position cannot be won by normal means> Well obviously it could. Are you saying it can't be won by normal means just because it's a theoretical draw? The status of a position as being theoretically drawn says nothing about the practical difficulties. If you know a position is drawn but you don't know how to prove it, are we to think that you can simply claim a draw just because you are in time trouble? |
|
May-12-06
| | acirce: <tamar> The arbiter should have rejected the claim and therefore awarded Kamsky two minutes extra time, I think. |
|
| May-12-06 | | MTal: Suppose that when Morozevitch overslept in the Russian superfinals, we was able to show up with 1 min remaining on his clock. He can't claim a draw due to having a "theoretically drawn" position. |
|
May-12-06
| | keypusher: The key term seems to be "normal means." <catfriend>, you seem to think that a position that is theoretically drawn cannot be won by normal means, and therefore the player should be able to claim a draw. I don't agree. I posted on <Eric Schiller>'s page, inviting him to comment, since he is an international arbiter; any other international arbiters out there? I claim no expertise; my opinion is based solely on reading the FIDE rules, which I just did for the first time in my life. |
|
| May-12-06 | | cannibal: I totally agree with acirce here.
That rule only makes sense if it's there to prevent wins on time by just shuffling around. Neither did Kamsky win on time nor was he making random moves. A win due to mistakes in time trouble is still a win "by normal means". |
|
May-12-06
| | percyblakeney: Previous R vs. N endgames with the rook winning:
Endgame Explorer |
|
May-12-06
 | | Ulhumbrus: The end of this game suggests that a K and R will win against a King and N by playing for zugzwang in a way which compels the N to leave the company of his K, whereupon the K and can trap gradually the N. Thus in reply to 86 Kf3 Bacrot could not keep his N close to his K by playing 86...Ng2 ( as then 87 Rg7 would have attacked, pinned and won the N) but had to move the N away from the K by 86...Nf4 whereupon Kamsky's K and R trapped it by degrees. |
|
May-12-06
 | | CapablancaFan: I hope someone had a dry towel for Kamsky to wipe the sweat off his forehead because this was a hard fought battle on a grand scale. It just seems like Kamsky was determined to get the point by any means necessary. It's funny that while this game was in progress that so many kibitzers gave this game up as drawn. Only a couple of people besides myself pointed out that white had a very slight advantage, albehit, only accurate play would show this. I see endgame analysis is still a skill that seems to be mastered only by a few. |
|
May-12-06
| | percyblakeney: I was sure it was a draw after 38 moves, but the only thing that was sure is that I was wrong... I didn't think it would end up with black having to allow a K vs. N endgame. But at the same time it's very uncommon that the rook wins, Bacrot is by far the strongest player in more than 75 years to lose such an endgame... |
|
| May-12-06 | | Confuse: didnt bacrot just lose his knight at the end ? whats all this talk about getting a draw? o _ O go kamsky, i dont like ur style but i hope u give a good fight vs anand tomorrow. |
|
May-12-06
| | keypusher: <Bacrot is by far the strongest player in more than 75 years to lose such an endgame...> Yes, but Benjamin, Ftacnik, Lalic, Movsesian and Kharitonov are all fine players...also, the database must be quite incomplete, since it has only three examples before 1978! |
|
| May-12-06 | | muzzy: If Bacrot held his end of the draw, then i would have gotten the pick 3 correct and won 2575 on chessbookie, leading me to 5th place! |
|
| May-12-06 | | niceforkingmove: Koltanowski could have drawn with black in that endgame blindfolded :) |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
