|Nov-27-07|| ||jkiipli: interesting note regarding this game:
|Nov-27-07|| ||lentil: the note makes no sense, <jkiipli>: it says Baramidze overslept and arrived with 56 s left on his clock. this was the second game of the day. (unless B had a nap).|
|Nov-27-07|| ||cannibal: <lentil>
Nah, it was the first game.
|Nov-29-07|| ||popski: Haha, great win David! You could beat him in a 56 sec! Haha, Bronstein time gambit style, cool!|
|Nov-29-07|| ||Marmot PFL: Opening is Dragon, not Accelerated Fianchetto. Amazing that Short could lose this ending.|
|Nov-29-07|| ||dexterious: Hahaha, this is really really funny. The guy beats Short with 56 secs total time. Hahaha, hahahaha. Imagine this: Short is waiting for almost 30 minutes, preparing to win a forfeited game. This guy strolls in with his jacket held over his shoulder, wins in less than a minute, says "thanks for playing, dude", and strolls out.|
|Nov-29-07|| ||Riverbeast: Well, there was a time delay on the clock...still impressive though. |
Nigel Short was crying about it in his chessbase interview. He wants to propose new 'forfeit' rules for rapid games.
Why are so many chessplayers such crybabies? Losing this game to a relative unknown is your fault and your fault only, Short...don't blame it on the 'distraction'
|Nov-29-07|| ||GreenArrow: An idiotic comment to call Nigel Short a crybaby. He merely alerted people to a flaw in the FIDE rules and stated 'psychologically it is difficult to play under such circumstances', which is absolutely true.|
|Nov-29-07|| ||TIMER: <GreenArrow> I would find it difficult too- but why not just go away for 10-15 minutes when opponent arrives- still upon returning having over a 10 to 1 time advantage, but having re-adjusted yourself for the new situation?|
|Nov-29-07|| ||Riverbeast: It's not idiotic at all...one more minute and Short would have had a free point...but he didn't get it. Is that what he was upset about?|
Many people get distracted in the opponent's time pressure, and start moving faster, hoping to 'push him over'... But an experienced GM like Short should not allow that to happen. He should shut it out, take his time, find good moves and not make decisions based on the opponent's time situation.
|Nov-29-07|| ||Merlot: Making an opponent wait in a tournament is one of the oldest tricks in competition chess. Most amateur players know that. I don't think it is a flaw in the rules; after all, it is his/her time. Time managment is one of the first things that tournament players learn to cope with. I can not believe a world class GM is crying for it like a beginner.|
|Nov-29-07|| ||cotdt: not only did Short's opponent only get 56 seconds to play, but he just woke up tired from a nap, and went on to beat him. haha. it was Short's fault that he blundered on his opponent's time trouble. if anything, he should be happy that he had such a big advantage for free. psychology is what makes chess more interesting. we like drama, especially when we don't get to see good chess being played.|
|Nov-29-07|| ||syracrophy: Nigel Short's best years are already over. Now any unknown beat him|
|Nov-29-07|| ||Jim Bartle: Still, better a has-been than a never-was...|
|Nov-29-07|| ||popski: <TIMER> Good point! But Short was probably totally unprepared for such a scenario. Good to know if it happens to you someday...|
Bronstein is probably the most famous player who quite regularly used such psychological tricks to disturb opponents. Botvinnik had the special trainings for such psychological pressures.
|Nov-30-07|| ||Karpova: Nigel Short: <"ChessBase missed out one important detail in my departure to Baramidze: in the decisive (25 minute) rapid game, my opponent showed up more than 24 minutes late!|
While my opponent was perfectly entitled to do so under current regulations, there is an interesting philosophical question as to if this practice should be allowed. If we are to pretend that chess is a proper sport, why, indeed, are players permitted to arrive late at all? If you would try to do that in tennis or football, or just about any serious sport, you would be forfeited immediately.
Even if you take the view (as I do) that a certain amount of leeway should be given, one hour for a 25 minute game does not make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore I would argue that one hour is a ridiculous amount of time to have to wait to claim a victory even in classical chess. If your opponent cannot be bothered to show up within 15 minutes of the proper starting time, "tough luck" I would say. For rapid chess the time for forfeiture time could come after, say, five minutes.
Now doubt people will write in to say that it is my own stupidity for failing to win with such a massive advantage. I agree. In mitigation I would say that psychologically it is difficult to play under such circumstances. Had Baramidze merely been late, rather than absurdly late, I do not believe I would have been any way disturbed. However at some point it became clear that unless he entered the room more or less instantly, the game was over. It was at precisely that moment he actually arrived.
I hope that focusing on my personal failings in this particular case will not obscure the important issue that I have raised. I propose an immediate change in the FIDE rules.">
David Baramidze: <"I was asleep in my room and missed the start. Jet lag was the problem, as I am only able to fall asleep very late in the night (or early in the morning). I was able to play the game with the time increment. After the position was simplified the disadvantage on the clock did not make a big difference and I was able to play quite normally.">
Chessbase.com: <It turns out that David was awakened when room service knocked to check his mini-bar!>
|Nov-30-07|| ||Marvol: <TIMER: <GreenArrow> I would find it difficult too- but why not just go away for 10-15 minutes when opponent arrives- still upon returning having over a 10 to 1 time advantage, but having re-adjusted yourself for the new situation?>|
I was thinking <exactly> this. Since you have to reset yourself, get used to the idea of having to play... well, just leave the board, walk around for a bit, as if your game is just about to start normally.
Then return to the board 15 minutes later and still have much more time than your opponent.
And kick his ass :)!!
|Dec-02-07|| ||supertimchan: I'd just go outside to have a cup of coffee and come back when I'd only a minute left. You see, in this case nobody could blame because both sides had only a minute left. If you lost, you'd have an excuse. A rapid game would be turned into a 1-minute bullet game.|
|Dec-05-07|| ||Cibator: I agree with Timer on this one. Many years ago I saw an article by NZ master Bob Wade. He recalled a game of his against GM Fritz Saemisch, a noted time-trouble addict who frequently spent most of his allotted time on the first 12 or 15 moves. In this particular case, Wade had about 90 minutes to spare while Saemisch was down to about 3 or 4. This was not at all an unusual situation for Saemisch, whom Wade correctly judged was quite capable of making the couple of dozen or so moves still required to safely reach the time-control. So Wade sat on the position for a whole hour, during which time Saemisch gradually went "off the boil" and, his massive adrenaline surge totally spent, not surprisingly tamely forfeited on time only a couple of moves later.|
|Dec-05-07|| ||Hafen Slawkenbergius: Was Short informed about his opponent late waking up? It makes a lot of difference whether he was sitting there, wondering what psychlogical trick Baramadze was trying to pull on him, or whether he was gleefully checkung the clock, praying a traffic jam would give him a free point.|
<popski>'s post was also very interesting.
|Dec-05-07|| ||Jim Bartle: Cibator: great story, ingenious tactic.|
|Dec-06-07|| ||Larsker: Better late than nigel.|
|Dec-06-07|| ||Cibator: A further thought: why did Short play so conventionally, given the time situation? A one-time acquaintance of mine, when playing at very short time limits, always used to start (1)e4 and (2)Qh5 against just about anything bar ...g6 or ...Nf6. His opponents almost invariably fell fatally behind because of the initial shock and the time taken to react to it.|
(Or was the time limit here one of those new-fangled ones where you gain a few extra seconds for every move made? In which case the stratagem would be less effective.)
|Dec-06-07|| ||Larsker: <Cibator> I've had the same thought. Complicate as much as possible - the other guy has a couple of seconds for each move.|
|Jul-21-14|| ||Chessinfinite: Nice game by Baramidze under severe time pressure :) Short was all alone during this time, expecting an easy win, only to get the shock of the day !|