< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Nov-08-06|| ||percyblakeney: Gijssen's statement is here:
As has been noticed, the thing he writes about 46. ... Qc7 doesn't make any sense and must be another mistake. Maybe he means 45. ... Qb6.
64.ru about it in Russian: http://www.64.ru/?/ru/articles/item...
|Nov-08-06|| ||Milo: If white played 46.Be3 it makes sense that Magnus would respond 46...Qc7 hoping to repeat the position that occured after 44.Kg2 and 39.Kg2. (Except with a different side to move!)|
|Nov-08-06|| ||percyblakeney: <Milo> That must be it, strange though that no sources claim that there was a 56th move played by any of the sides...|
|Nov-08-06|| ||percyblakeney: Morozevich may have trusted Gijssen and Carlsen a bit too much here since he left it to them to check the position. When asked to comment on the game immediately afterwards he said approximately: "What is there to comment on? That I don't know how to count to three?".|
|Nov-08-06|| ||Keano: Amazing that the arbiter can make such a simple and astounding mistake at this high-level. Lots of players think 3-fold repition but dont remember it must be the same position with the same player to move|
|Nov-08-06|| ||slomarko: the most absurd part of Gissen's statement is <All this time Mr. Carlsen was waiting for the game to continue and did not analyze the resulting position.> those guys dont need a board to analyze so how can he tell what was in Carlsen's head. but one have to admit Carlsen outsmarted them all. first he invented a repetition which wasnt there. then he convinced the arbiter about it and finaly he was waiting for the game to continue. great job. |
|Nov-08-06|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Ron> On 46 Qc8 Nd7 47 Ke1 Qd4 48 Ke2 keeps up the pressure|
|Nov-08-06|| ||euripides: <microdot 45.g6+ , Ke7 46.Bb5!> nice after 46...Bxb5 47.Qg8, but not so nice after 46....Qxb5. But White may well have winning chances by calmer play.|
|Nov-08-06|| ||Interbond: slomarko so you mean Carlsen lied abot the position to grab 0.5point?
If not, why else would you use the word outsmarted?
I think you are trolling......
|Nov-08-06|| ||DCP23: To be consistent in his incompetence, mr. Gijssen, after realizing the error of his decision to draw the game Morozevich-Carlsen, informing Carlsen of his error and failing to find Morozevich in order to inform him, should have decided to continue the game, started Moro's clock and forfeited him for a full point in due time, awarding the point to Carlsen.|
Otherwise, he's only a half-assed ass.
|Nov-08-06|| ||slomarko: a top GM rated almost 2700 and a reknown arbiter with tons of experience both fail to see that there was no 3 times repetition in a RECONSTRUCTION? thats a joke.|
|Nov-08-06|| ||slomarko: from Gijsen's letter: <Afterwards I had my doubts and on my own initiative again investigated the game>. question here is why did he have doubts?|
|Nov-08-06|| ||vonKrolock: From the final position - after the quite morezevichean 47.g5 -g6! ♔e7 48. ♗b5!! White is clearly in advantage, for instance: 48...♗b5 (what else?) 49.♕g8 ♗e8 (best) 50.♕g7 ♔d8 51.♕h8! etc|
|Nov-08-06|| ||sandmanbrig: I've never seen this variation of the sveshnikov before. Does it have any real strength for white?|
|Nov-08-06|| ||cotdt: Moro would have won this game. Then Moro would have 1.0/3 while Carlsen would have 0.5/3 in the current standings. But too bad the rule of 3-fold repetition is too complicated for Carlsen and the over-the-hill arbiter, who have made a great many mistakes yet they continue to hire him.|
|Nov-09-06|| ||Gypsy: I must be missing something. I have not found one position repeting 3x even if disregarding the right to move.|
|Nov-09-06|| ||chancho: From move 38...Kf7 I think that Carlsen may have started counting moves for a threefold repetition.|
|Nov-09-06|| ||Gypsy: The position after <39.Kg2> and <44...Kf7> are the same -- up the right of move, of course. The score ends with <45.Bd2 Bb6>. So, I guess, Moro played also <46.Be3>, which right now is not in the score, but which would let Carlsen to play 46...Qc7 ... and claim a pseudo-repetition.|
|Nov-09-06|| ||DCP23: This is the actual score:
42...Kf7 43.Kg3 Ke7 44.Kg2 Kf7 45.Bd2 Qb6 46.Be3.
|Nov-09-06|| ||Ulhumbrus: <sandmanbrig: I've never seen this variation of the sveshnikov before. Does it have any real strength for white?> Although 10 Nxe7 moves the N a third time to exchange itself for a Black KB which has moved only once,making a loss of two tempi for development, it gains the bishop pair, which is a permanent advantage. Black is in trouble , unless he finds a way to exact a penalty for White's loss of time, so that White is compelled to make a concession whose value is as great as that of the bishop pair|
|Nov-09-06|| ||Confuse: for the three repetition rule, both sides have to repeat correct?|
|Nov-10-06|| ||slomarko: <Confuse: for the three repetition rule, both sides have to repeat correct?> not really. the repetition rule is pretty simply, if the exact same position arises on the board with the same player to move a draw can be claimed.|
|Nov-12-06|| ||sucaba: Carlsen's first interpretation of threefold repetition is reasonable.|
According to the FIDE rule 9.2
(i) <Positions [...] are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.>,
It could be modified into
(ii) <Positions [...] are considered the same, if pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.>.
This simplification would strengthen the justified claim of the player who wants to draw a position after exactly the same situation (that is the same position + the same player has to move ) has reoccured in a game. Indeed, now games like this Morozevich vs Carlsen, 2006 or Fischer vs Spassky, 1972 would be real draws.
On the other hand, it would still allow to continue playing after an unintentional move producing
a second occurence of a position with either the same or a different player to move.
Besides, since in each position, only one of both players is allowed to move, the part about <possible moves of both players> in (i) does not make sense, but it does in (ii).
|Nov-12-06|| ||Phony Benoni: This one is sounding like it might become a triple repetition classic, right up there with Keene vs P H Donoso, 1976 and Reti vs Alekhine, 1925 (provided that the latter story is not apocryphal, which it is too good not to be).|
|Dec-08-06|| ||cu8sfan: The story about this draw is incredible.
1. I think the rules of chess aren't that complicated - the fact that the arbiter hardly ever needs to interfere is proof of that. It is even more surprising then that neither the players nor the arbiter immediately realized their mistake.
2. <The organizers tried to reach Mr. Morozevich, but he was nowhere to be found.> Did they really want Moro to come back to the board and play on? Let's say he had come back and played on, how do we know he hadn't analyzed his game with a computer? It's absurd to call a player back to the board after he's left the premises. The toilet-scandal of Elista simply pales in comparison.
3. <All this time Mr. Carlsen was waiting for the game to continue and did not analyze the resulting position.> Not only did he most likely analyze the position in his head, in the German magazine "Schach", Vladimir Barski writes (translation by cu8sfan) "... Carlsen presented the game to the journalists and discussed several plans in the final position...
4. Interesting detail: After the infamous game 5 (Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006), FIDE officials apparently claimed that after the arbiter had sealed the result of a game with his signature, no court of law - neither sports nor civil - would be able to appeal that decision. Here we have the arbiter himself revoking a result he has sealed with his signature.
I think, not Carlsen is the sportsmanlike gentleman here but Moro is, by accepting the draw even though he might have gotten more out of it.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·