< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·
|Sep-02-08|| ||Etienne: Both Ivanchuk and Anand are winners in this game. Ivanchuk for getting the advantage against the WC and Anand for agreeing to the draw. The man is a worthy WC both for his chess and for his class.|
|Sep-03-08|| ||Sneaky: <If we are talking about someone being two queens up whose opponent is just moving his king g1-h1-g1-h1-g1 to win on time, it makes sense.> Actually that's the scenario that doesn't make sense. I mean, it makes sense in regard to your position on the matter, but in actual practice that's not the method that players use to try to score a win on the clock. If one player tried to win in exactly that fashion the other player would just also make repetitive moves and bingo, he got his draw, via three time rep. |
The real way to try to get the "sleazy flag-win" is to prance a piece randomly and chaotically all over the place. If you can toss in a few checks as you do it, all the better.
|Sep-03-08|| ||Darek: What if Chuky play 44...Re6! tacktycal shot and Maltan cross upraising ....white must play 45 Rd2 , and black 45...Re1 check !|
|Sep-03-08|| ||VaselineTopLove: From the Chessbase website: The first time control has been met, and now, according to a Very Strong Player on Playchess.com "Anand is in big trouble – Black plays ...Qxc4 and has an extra pawn and better position."|
I wonder who this 'very strong player' was...?
|Sep-03-08|| ||acirce: <Actually that's the scenario that doesn't make sense. I mean, it makes sense in regard to your position on the matter, but in actual practice that's not the method that players use to try to score a win on the clock. If one player tried to win in exactly that fashion the other player would just also make repetitive moves and bingo, he got his draw, via three time rep.>|
Yes, yes, yes, I know, geez...it's ONE method they use, and I just needed one example to make my point. Surely you fully well understood what I mean. If the other player is trying to win by making constructive moves, it is going to work. If he goes for repetition too, the player about to win on time of course stops repeating. Maybe keep moving his king around but now also move a pawn now and then. Or something else. I've seen that many times and surely you have too.
|Sep-03-08|| ||acirce: A more interesting question now is why on earth THIS was allowed to be a draw, but the arbiters forced Radjabov vs Topalov, 2008 to play down to bare kings! If they are going to use no-draw rules they have to decide what the rules actually <mean>, and apply them in a manner that at least remotely resembles consistency...|
|Sep-03-08|| ||rangek: why not 16... Bf3?
Sorry im a newbie
|Sep-03-08|| ||VaselineTopLove: If 16...Bf3, then 17.Qf1 covering the g2 square|
|Sep-03-08|| ||arsen387: <rangek: why not 16... Bf3?> it will be met with 17.Qf1, so Bf3 is no real threat :) |
no need to apologize, ask whenever you're in trouble, many kibitzers will be glad to help you any time. I hope you'll enjoy this site. :)
|Sep-03-08|| ||moronovich: <VaselineTopLove> The strong player is likely a senior who retired some years ago.|
From his elderly home , he now and then see things :)
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Very well. No arbiter I know interprets the rule that way, and I think personally it would be nonsensical to do so. If we are talking about someone being two queens up whose opponent is just moving his king g1-h1-g1-h1-g1 to win on time, it makes sense. But that's not what I am talking about or what is the case here. And of course, pretty often it's not even clear who <has> the superior position. So I find it extremely hard to see how that can be used as a criterion.>|
Well, I am not talking about unclear and messy positions where the evaluation can be matter of discussion or at least where the side with better time has good practical chance to win despite of objective disadvantage which can be proven only by precise play of opponent. But there is also no need of "being two queens up". A Rook ending with sound extra Pawn for black which could appear in this game after 58...Qxd5 59.Rxd5 Rb2+ 60.Kh3 Ra2 (diagram)
click for larger view
is undoubtedly not winnable "by any normal means" for white. In such a case is article 10.2 a) of FIDE rules perfectly applicable. (I don't say it was applied here as any decent player would take a draw without hesitation as white.)
|Sep-03-08|| ||hedgeh0g: I think Ivanchuk can count himself lucky that he was playing someone like Anand and not Topalov, who I'm sure wouldn't be quite as obliging. At one point, Chucky had the better position AND more time on the clock, but I think when he realised he could squeeze a win, he probably looked too deeply into his possibilities.|
Can't say I'm a big fan of no time increments, but that's the way things are and I think Chucky will have to get used to it seeing as he has a knack for getting into time trouble.
|Sep-03-08|| ||cannibal: <hedgeh0g: Can't say I'm a big fan of no time increments, but that's the way things are and I think Chucky will have to get used to it seeing as he has a knack for getting into time trouble.>|
Ivanchuk already proved that he can handle this time control, by winning Sofia with 8/10. The problem here, as reported, was that he simply FORGOT that this time control was in use. Which is really a bit careless, and he couldn't have complained if it had been punished with a loss.
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: < VinnyRoo2002: I respectfully disagree Honza. Before starting with my argument, I'd just like to say I appreciate all your contributions to this site and also recognize that you rarely, if ever, get drawn into these back and forth exchanges, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't reply to this, but my position is this:|
If someone has a lot of time left on their clock, then it would be absurd to let your clock run down, however, if you are down to say ten minutes and you stand slightly better, but the position is difficult to win with even some losing chances due to complication, I could definitely see someone letting their clock run below two minutes, and then claim a draw.>
Yes, but this is not the way in which the rule 10.2 is applied by anybody despite of all different interpretations of it. And it quite often depends on arbiter who has always final word in these cases. Different arbiters have sometimes very different approach to this matter. But nobody uses 10.2 a) in positions which are not dead draws or clerly superior (usually utterly won) for side requesting draw and in such a situation they usually postpone their decision according to article 10.2 b).
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: Here is article 10 in full:
<Article 10: Quickplay Finish
10.1 A 'quickplay finish' is the 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 time.
d. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c.>
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <Honza Cervenka: In classic otb game without increments a player with less than two minutes for the rest of game can claim a draw if he thinks that his opponent is not trying to win the game on board but on time only. Then it depends on the arbiter's decision. In situation, which are evidently drawn or where the player with worse time has superior position the arbiter can decide that the game is draw <or he can decide (if the other side disagrees) to resume the play without clock.>>|
Of course, the last part of my kibitz was not precise. In fact - if 10.2b. is applied - the play continues with clock and arbiter can add 2 minutes to the opponent of player requesting draw but the fall of flag of this player does not mean automatic loss of game.
|Sep-03-08|| ||acirce: <Honza Cervenka> So you agree now that "superior position" is not enough to claim a draw; that is good as it was my main point. I'm still not sure at all about the diagrammed position (and definitely not with the queens on as was still the case in Anand-Ivanchuk). Given desperate time trouble, I have no problem imagining a continuation like 61.Rc5 Kf7 62.Rc7+ Ke6 63.Rc6+ Ke5 64.Rxa6 followed by White somehow winning (of course I understand it is a draw, but anything can happen in time trouble. That's part of the game. You should not be able to automatically get away with a draw in time trouble [remember that it is self-inflicted!] if there is even a hint of plausible losing chances, and the way I interpret the rules, that is also the way it is.)|
|Sep-03-08|| ||dzhafner: Whats wrong with 54 Rxa4?|
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <acirce> If I understand the article 10.2 well and from my experience good portion of arbiters interpret it just in this way, arbiter can decide on the request of a player that the game is draw but many prefer to apply point 10.2b. at first, especially when there can be some doubts about evaluation of situation on board. I have seen a game where a guy had Rook Pawn and bad Bishop against King and he refused to agree with draw offer (he probably did not know that the game was theoretical draw then) and so his opponent who was a bit down with time claimed draw under article 10. Arbiter decided that the game will continue according to 10.2b with 2 mins awarded to the guy with Bishop and Pawn. Of ccourse, the game ended as draw in the end as the guy realized after a few moves that he can't make any progress...|
|Sep-03-08|| ||Honza Cervenka: <dzhafner: Whats wrong with 54 Rxa4?> 55. Qxf7+|
|Sep-03-08|| ||SetNoEscapeOn: <acirce>
I agree completely- it's part of the game! Especially with sudden death time controls.
You know who my favorite player is, but I don't understand all this praise that Anand is getting for demonstrating "good sportsmanship" It is "for the birds"! It's every player's responsibility to manage their own time. There is nothing wrong with letting a player to who insists on using up all of his time to finish doing so.
I know Korchnoi takes a lot of flak for being so grumpy (although I tend to just find it amusing), but he was probably onto something when he said
<"Vishwanathan Anand has an extremely strong game; he is excellent in terms of strategy and tactics, but his only problem is that he lacks ambition," says chess great Victor Korchnoi.
Speaking to Doordarshan's news channel Sportstime, the former Soviet dissident who is best remembered for his legendary battles with Anotaly Karpov, said: ''After seeing Anand play, I feel that he plays beautifully, but at times he is not smacking his opponents.
''Sometimes, you have to be more violent.''>
Of course, anybody who climbs to world #1 and world champion of an insanely competitive game like chess isn't lacking in that area. But it wouldn't hurt to be more ruthless.
If Ivanchuk had been playing Kasparov, he probably wouldn't have even bothered to offer a draw.
|Sep-03-08|| ||Cactus: I have to agree with Woody Wood Pusher here. What? Did I write that right?
*Reads it again*
Hmmm.... the Twilight Zone is upon us!
|Sep-03-08|| ||suenteus po 147: <Cactus: I have to agree with Woody Wood Pusher here. What? Did I write that right? *Reads it again*
Hmmm.... the Twilight Zone is upon us!> Aside from a persistent, vocal displeasure with all things Kramnik, <Woody Wood Pusher> is a reasonable, sensible, well spoken kibitzer on every other subject that I have seen. So the Twilight Zone is still a few weeks off :)|
|Sep-04-08|| ||Mateo: After the game Anand said to Leontxo Garcia there was a bad smell of fresh painting in the cube. He felt uncomfortable and hoped iy wouldn't be the same in the next round and other tournaments...|
|Sep-04-08|| ||Ulhumbrus: <Mateo: After the game Anand said to Leontxo Garcia there was a bad smell of fresh painting in the cube. He felt uncomfortable and hoped iy wouldn't be the same in the next round and other tournaments...> I have heard or read somewhere that the vapour given off by some paints, possibly lead paints, is poisonous and can kill.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 17 OF 17 ·