| Aug-31-08 | | Judah: This needs to be updated now that the arbiter's ruling was overturned. Socko won, as a mate is technically possible with K and N vs. K and N (if both sides work together to make it happen).
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-31-08 | | Wolfgang01: This needs to be updated, because Foisors flag fell. Therefor Socko is the winner!! |
|
| Sep-01-08 | | rick77: wow...thats unfair... |
|
| Sep-01-08 | | VaselineTopLove: Imagine if the same thing had happened in a sudden death game between the top Super GMs! do you think they would have fought in the same manner? |
|
| Sep-01-08 | | whiteshark: This is how it should read:
"Game incomplete, there were pieces flying around, both players finished
with King and Knight when black's flag fell. The game was initally declared
drawn by the arbiters and but on appeal Socko went through from this Armageddon game. <1-0>" |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | virginmind: i find the final ruling rather strange (watching also the video on chessbase today, sept 7), as i know that you can only win a game if your opponent's flag fell and the pieces remaining on the table allow you for a win; and still it's about winning a normal game between normal players - while no normal player would allow a selfmate. self mate is possible in this k+n v. k+n situation only if both players work together to make it happen. but the two players are supposed to be adversaries who each want to win, not working together for the defeat of one of them. this is why i find the ruling disputable. |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | acirce: <virginmind> No basis for that in FIDE rules, I'm afraid. I find the ruling correct -- but of course you can always argue that the rules should be different. |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | slomarko: <virginmind: i find the final ruling rather strange (watching also the video on chessbase today, sept 7), as i know that you can only win a game if your opponent's flag fell and the pieces remaining on the table allow you for a win; and still it's about winning a normal game between normal players - while no normal player would allow a selfmate. self mate is possible in this k+n v. k+n situation only if both players work together to make it happen. but the two players are supposed to be adversaries who each want to win, not working together for the defeat of one of them.> i don't understand why people keep repeating this stupid argument. for example if you only have a pawn and your oponent has a queen and 2 rooks and his flag falls he losses even if a normal player (and an abnormal too) would never ever lose that game. blitz is not fair and its basicaly a time game and thats that. |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | Red October: < acirce: <virginmind> No basis for that in FIDE rules, I'm afraid. I find the ruling correct -- but of course you can always argue that the rules should be different.> yes the officials have to make their decision within the current rule framework, they can disregard a rule only if it is in contrary to a superior provision or the law of the relevant jurisdiction, otherwise they have to rule within that framework |
|
| Sep-07-08 | | myschkin: . . .
"Carry on up the Armageddon" (+ Video*)
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
(by John Saunders)
* <virginmind> mentioned |
|
| Jul-23-09 | | dumbgai: Games like this illustrate the biggest problem with Armageddon blitz. |
|
Dec-17-22
 | | FSR: This is disgusting. Of course king and knight versus king and knight should be an automatic draw, unless at the moment of the flag-fall the non-flagger has mate in one. |
|
| Dec-17-22 | | stone free or die: Well, it appears to be a technical point, but <FSR>'s criterion is stricter than the rules in force at the time: < The original arbiter said “draw” because White could not force a win. But White appealed and the appeal committee took note of Article 9.6 (see above) which makes it clear that the possibility of mate takes precedence over its likelihood. Hence, as Socko could win from the flag fall position with a legal series of moves, she was awarded the game.> http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
(From the link <myschkin> posted) |
|
Dec-17-22
| | FSR: <stone free or die> I know my proposed rule is stricter. And AFAIK, the FIDE rule still decrees that if one's flag falls in a knight versus knight ending, the opponent wins. See https://chess24.com/en/read/news/wh... But come on. You're not going to win with king and knight versus knight unless you're opponent cooperates. Players don't normally cooperate to ensure the result of a game; when they do, it's called "cheating." If someone ever checkmated the opponent in king and knight versus king and knight, everyone would assume that the game had been thrown, and they'd be right. In king and two knights versus king (an automatic draw under USCF rules, but NOT under FIDE rules), I could imagine someone being stupid enough to get mated, but not in king and knight versus king. |
|
Kibitzing
