< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·
|Jan-06-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: 1. e2xe8 1-0|
|Jan-06-18|| ||zanzibar: <<OCF> I'll add my two cents that the claim Carlsen "instinctively" moved out of check doesn't really seem right when you watch the video. It took far longer than an "instinctive" move.>|
I'd make a differentiation between a reactive move and an instinctive.
Instinctive here means that seeing his king in check he instinctively focused all his attention on getting it out of check. King safety demands some deliberation whenever moving such an important and vulnerable piece.
The only time such instinctive focus would be errant would be when your opponent makes an illegal move. And I believe Carlsen's focus is so extraordinary, and his instincts so reactive, that he could easily temporarily forget that his opponent was in check once he saw his king under attack.
|Jan-06-18|| ||MissScarlett: <Or did Bardeen get it wrong...>|
Beg your pardon, it's Barden.
|Jan-06-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Zanibar,
" And I believe Carlsen's focus is so extraordinary, and his instincts so reactive, that he could easily temporarily forget that his opponent was in check."
Then we are all Carlsen's because every blitz player I know has missed a check or left their King hanging. It's very common in OTB blitz. Impossible in net blitz. You need to get out more :)
W.P.E. is correct:
" Inarkiev was merely rash in the heat of the battle and deserves the benefit of the doubt."
It was a clutch at a passing straw did on the spur of the moment and the deeper he waded in to grab that straw the worse it looked and he was soon in over his head.
It was ridiculous claim but it caught both players and an arbiter.
|Jan-06-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <Sally Simpson>|
The benefit of the doubt is one thing, but it does not mean I am not suspicious.
In a previous comment I wondered why Carlsen reacted so calm, considering his temper when 'things go wrong.'
But what do you know? Carlsen was prepared! Peter Heine Nielsen seems to have faced the same swindle in Dubai '14:
In other words: what had been Carlsen's reaction if he were unprepared for this nonsense? I think this is a serious consideration, after reading Carlsen's blog.
Btw watch closely how Inarkiev studies the reaction of Magnus when Carlsen 'hears the news' from the arbiter.
It's a bit supicious that it happened during the first round, because that makes the incident a bit too incidental IMHO
We're speaking of a very prestigious -politically- tournament, not about some local chess happening FYI. That's the difference. I think you can't neglect these facts, so IMO your comparison cuts no wood.
|Jan-06-18|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi W.P.E.
I don't think I am neglecting anything that really matters. I'm bringing to the debate nearly 50 years of blitz chess and the effect this cartoon chess has on players.
The Peter Heine Nielsen 'incident' was a dubious three fold rep claim which merited one post.
P H Nielsen vs V Kovalev, 2014
Which was quite different from this game.
Which proves, as I said before Blitz squabbles happen all the time and we are only debating this because Carlsen was involved.
I'm afraid my telepathic skills do not match yours in as much as you can tell what a player was thinking by 'watching closely' at Inarkiev studying the reaction of Magnus when he hears the news from the arbiter.
The lad has no prior convictions for this kind of behaviour, his after match interview tells you he was not used to this situation. He got his hand stuck in a cookie jar and had no experience on how to slip it out saving face.
He got wrapped up in a moment of madness which blitz has a habit of bringing out in people and may or may not be embarrassed about it (as I said before, my telepathic skills are found wanting as to what he thinks.)
"a very prestigious -politically- tournament" It's a Mickey Mouse event and this happening in the first round or the last round matters not. (Infact it's more like a latter rounds incident when the money is at stake.)
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and moving on.
|Feb-02-18|| ||Lovuschka: So what exactly is supposedly illegal about Carlsen's move? It is not illegal to move your king out of check. And there is no rule in the FIDE Laws of Chess that says it is illegal to keep up a check either. If Carlsen's move would be illegal, then in fact Carlsen would be checkmate as he is unable to remove both checks at the same time. Now that checkmate would not have been made by a legal move, meaning that Inarkiev's move does not win the game. So the game has to continue, but it can't as there is supposedly no legal move. So stalemate?|
No, the truth is an easier solution: The judge is a complete ... you know what ... who did not read the Laws of Chess, and so did not see that moving a king out of check is completely legal. And he also did not see that there is no rule against giving check, or sustaining it, with your move. In fact, as that should not happen, it is not covered anywhere. Caputuring Inarkiev's king would have been illegal. Moving the own king out of check is not.
So Inarkiev should have been punished for making a false claim. Also the game should have continued after R:b7+. So the appeal decision was correct.
Also the judge should never be used for ANY tournament again until he makes a refreshment course about the rules of chess.
|Oct-17-18|| ||harrylime: <nok: Most players who make an illegal move in blitz just lose because the opponent sees it. This was unusual in that the opponent didn't see it and the arbiter was also wrong.|
What I do mean anyway is that the chief arbiter's decision was iffy, and <most> white knights here would object to have to play it again irl.>
Talking/Posting out of Your ass again <Nok> ??! lol
Nothing new here tho is there !
Inarkiev has a rating of 2680 plus .. He knew his king was in check .. I mean , an enemy rook on b7 next to your King on b6 .. c'mon ! lol lol lol ... he knew and tried a last desperate attempt to avoid the loss...
The fact he took it to appeal is just embarrassing...... Magnus, and I'm not a fan of Carlsen, handled it all impeccably.
Inarkiev is an embarrassment to chess.
|Oct-17-18|| ||ajile: After the first illegal move is made then anything after that should be cancelled and irrelevant. The pieces are reset to the point before the illegal move and play is resumed.|
Note: If the second player (Carlsen in this instance) calls out the illegal move before he moves then the existing rule applies and Inarkiev loses.
IMO Inarkiev got off the hook here since Carlsen missed the error ingame.
|Oct-17-18|| ||nok: <Inarkiev has a rating of 2680 plus .. He knew his king was in check ..>|
Rating's irrelevant, he just premoved Ne3.
|Oct-17-18|| ||harrylime: <nok: <Inarkiev has a rating of 2680 plus .. He knew his king was in check ..>|
Rating's irrelevant, he just premoved Ne3.>
Which was ILLEGAL.
And you are on here defending that SHAMELESS wanka Inarkiev.
What gives <NOK> ???
|Oct-17-18|| ||harrylime: Inarkiev Played
Ne3+ (Illegal move)
Carlsen had two choices here .. Take Inarkiev's King and claim the win , OR, Play a move on the board... he played Kd3 .... (Legalmove)
Inarkiev (shameless wanka that he is) claimed a win ... This was erroneously given at the board but obviously and rightly over ruled later ..
Carlsen's reply Kd3 was a LEGAL move.
Inarkiev should have played on IN THE LOST POSITION he knew it was ... but he refused AND SHAMELESSLY APPEALED ...
INARKIEV is an embarrassment ...
Whether his rep recovers after this is for the future .. but this whole incident was embarrassing ... and against the reigning WORLD CHAMP too ... lol lol
As has been said ... God only knows how a Kasparov or a Korchnoi would have reacted ... Fair play Magnus .
|Oct-17-18|| ||harrylime: Apparently USER <NOK> on this site reckons Inarkiev did the right thing ...|
|Oct-17-18|| ||nok: <Carlsen had two choices here .. Take Inarkiev's King and claim the win> No, taking the king is illegal. Many games were lost that way. To take advantage of an illegal move you have to claim it. So what happened:|
1) Inarkiev played Ne3 so fast (as he didn't expect Carlsen's intermezzo) that Carlsen didn't compute it was illegal. He played a move and forfeited his right to claim.
2) While Carlsen was moving Inarkiev realized the position was illegal, and mistakenly thought any move in an illegal position was illegal. So he claimed, and should have been rebuked.
3) The arbiter didn't know the rules either and thought the claim valid. He ended the game as 0-1.
4) Ten minutes later, as the next round was about to begin, the chief arbiter went to Inarkiev and asked him to resume the game. He tried to explain why but in the heat of the room couldn't make himself clear enough, so Inarkiev filed an appeal instead.
Yes, the arbiter was careless but there's no witch to burn here.
|Oct-17-18|| ||harrylime: NOK .. The USER <Nok> on this site , is still trying to defend the indefensible here ... it's actually getting quite surreal..... |
So we have the WORLD CHAMPION playing in a blitz game ..
His opponent is lost. He knows it . He tries a desparado swindle ..
The Arbiter comes over not having seen this shameless and deeply embarrassing incident and the game get's given to Inarkiev....
Only after a review did justice and sense prevail.
Inarkiev behaved throughout CLASSLESS and SHAMELESS....
|Oct-18-18|| ||nok: Not a swindle.
- He played an illegal move by accident,
- he claimed what he thought was an illegal move by his opponent.
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: It WAS an attempted SWINDLE.
He claimed an "illegal" move having already made an "Illegal" move ..
When it was explained to him that the World Champion's move was not "illegal" , he still attempted to "win" the game by going to an appeal.
This was a sleazy low down attempt to SWINDLE a World Chess Champion.
As I said earlier... God only knows how a Kasparov would have reacted to this ... and again fair play to Magnus.
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: What's more , no 2600 player doesn't know his/her king is in check with the enemy rook pressed up against it. |
Inarkiev is a wanka ..
Cheats do exist in chess ... lol
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: Magnus was most magnanimous in shaking this wankas' hand ... |
Top five Chess players who would have decked him
4. Fischer ! lol
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: I still think and believe User <NOK> is one of the best posters and members of this site ... |
I really do.
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: Actually I will go as far to say USER <NOK> is one of the best posters,if not The BEST poster on this site...|
|Oct-18-18|| ||harrylime: Not sure if I'm speaking out of order here but Can I just put up the USER <NOK> on these pages for being such a SPORT and showing such ETIQUETTE and CHIVALRY in this debate we have going here between the reigning WORLD CHESS CHAMPION and Ernesto Inarkiev .. |
It gladdens my heart to perceive how we all can get a long in the noble world of chess...
I'm sure Magnus feels the same regarding this game.
I will be nominating <NOK> at Xmas for USER of the year and this game thread will be there to support my nomination.
<NOK>.. the user <NOK> , not <nok> , but <NOK> , will no doubt be knocking on my door for more commendations ....
|Oct-18-18|| ||nok: <He claimed an "illegal" move having already made an "Illegal" move ..>
He made one because he had no time. He claimed one because he didn't know the rules. Neither is a bad sport.|
<When it was explained to him that the World Champion's move was not "illegal" , he still attempted to "win" the game by going to an appeal.> The arbiter's explanations were far from clear, and you'd agree to restart a blitz game ten minutes after it ended?
<God only knows how a Kasparov would have reacted to this ...> The guy who took back moves? lol
|Oct-18-18|| ||SChesshevsky: This was an interesting ending.
From the video, Inarkiev probably did make his knight move in error rather than something sneaky.
Carlson probably moved the king instinctively.
Inarkiev probably claimed the win because he didn't know the rule and there is really no downside.
Carlsen probably wasn't perturbed because he knew every move he made was legal.
The chief arbiter, who probably had to look up the rule, seemed correct in requesting the game continue.
Did Inarkiev not want to continue because he thought the arbiter incorrect? Or because he thought he was lost? Or because of some practical tourney reason? I don't know.
But probably a more entertaining ending than what would've happened OTB.
|Oct-21-18|| ||harrylime: <nok: <He claimed an "illegal" move having already made an "Illegal" move ..> He made one because he had no time. He claimed one because he didn't know the rules. Neither is a bad sport.>|
1 . The one move Inarkiev made was illegal.
2. The "claim" Inarkiev made was illegal.
3. BOTH are bad sport and bad etiquette.
4. Inarkiev was made fully aware of all this and STILL went for an appeal !
5. Any patzer knows their king is in CHECK when an enemy rook is kissing and snuggling right up to it on the next FKN square ! .... This CHEAT Inarkiev is a 2680 player .... and that clock was incremental .... lol lol
6. Iarkiev IS A LOW DOWN SOB Cheat ...
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·