< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·
|Jan-03-18|| ||chancho: <At this point Inarkiev stopped the clocks and <<<claimed victory>>> on the basis that Carlsen made an illegal move. The initial arbiter at first awarded Inarkiev the win, but Carlsen alerted the chief arbiter, who overruled the first arbiter, and gave Inarkiev the option of resuming the game from the position arising after Carlsen’s 28.Kd3.>|
Carlsen vs E Inarkiev, 2017
|Jan-03-18|| ||saffuna: <At this point Inarkiev stopped the clocks and <<<claimed victory>>> on the basis that Carlsen made an illegal move.>|
Carlsen had no legal move! Any move which didn't capture the king was illegal, and taking the king is also illegal.
|Jan-03-18|| ||nok: That's ignorance of the rules, but Carlsen didn't know them either. Neither did the arbiter, and if someone must be blamed, it's him.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: <<saff> Carlsen had no legal move!>|
That's not the opinion of the chief arbiter, nor of the appeals committee.
I have to agree with them, for otherwise blitz players who make (the we can all agree original) illegal moves would be rewarded.
I think an easy fix to this particular situation would be for FIDE to allow the "standard" blitz practice of capturing enemy kings.
That would fix such a situation lickety-split.
(Carlsen knew the rules well enough to know he didn't make an illegal move, and if anyone should be awarded a win, it should have been him)
|Jan-03-18|| ||chancho: Poor Inarkiev and his ignorance.
His King is checked via 27.Rxb7+ and forgets that he's supposed to move his King, but checks Carlsen's King instead.
Almost anyone could have made that same innocent mistake.
|Jan-03-18|| ||nok: <His King is checked via 27.Rxb7+ and forgets that he's supposed to move his King, but checks Carlsen's King instead.> The source of the confusion is that Rxb7 is itself an intermediate move.|
<Carlsen knew the rules well enough to know he didn't make an illegal move, and if anyone should be awarded a win, it should have been him> Carlsen signed the scoresheet with 0-1 afaik.
<I think an easy fix to this particular situation would be for FIDE to allow the "standard" blitz practice of capturing enemy kings.> Indeed, the rules would simplify if the goal was just capturing the king.
|Jan-03-18|| ||chancho: Carlsen signed the scoresheet because he was hoodwinked, but he sure caught on fast.|
Gotta give him credit for that.
|Jan-03-18|| ||nok: Had it happened to, say, Truong Son, would the decision have been reversed? Food for thought.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <nok>
No; you just have no arguments to support your case.
|Jan-03-18|| ||chancho: I don't believe for a minute that Inarkiev made his move accidentally.
He checked Carlsen by 27...Ne3+ and then called the arbiter over to say that Carlsen made an illegal move by 28.Kd3.|
How would he know that Carlsen made the illegal move, if it was Inarkiev's illegal move which prompted Carlsen's reaction?
And then claiming a win, how brazen is that.
|Jan-03-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: Well, <nok> has a point: Carlsen signed the scoresheet.|
Then Carlsen complained to the head arbiter and the score was reversed. Inarkiev's protest about that decision was rejected.
It only says something about how lame the arbitrage is. True dat.
|Jan-03-18|| ||Petrosianic: <And then claiming a win, how brazen is that.>|
Depends what the rules in force were. Donald Byrne once claimed a time forfeit against Reshevsky in a position where BOTH flags were down, on the grounds that the rules said only the player on the move could claim a forfeit. They ruled the game a draw, but technically speaking, it probably should have gone to Byrne.
|Jan-03-18|| ||Granny O Doul: The problem with capturing kings is that one can always do it, and if there is no recording, who is to say where my capturing piece came from? Just make sure you don't wind up with two bishops on the same color.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||nok: It's the same with queens really, and we do capture them.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: RE: Signing the scoresheet.
It means nothing as concerns approbation. This is similar to signing a traffic citation - there is no implicit acknowledgement of guilt involved.
In both cases, it just establishing a standing and identification - establishing your right to appeal/contest the finding.
All players should be aware of this. If not, here's the rules from the FIDE handbook:
At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.
Unless the rules of the competition specify otherwise, a player may appeal against any decision of the arbiter, even if the player has signed the scoresheet (see Article 8.7).>
I'm unaware of any explicit changes to the rules for this competition.
|Jan-03-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: <zanzibar> Thanks for pointing that out. My comment was premature.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: <Granny O Doul: The problem with capturing kings is that one can always do it, and if there is no recording, who is to say where my capturing piece came from? >|
Interesting thought, although it appears to me that without a recording who can say exactly when the illegal position arose, or who, if anybody, made the illegal move, or even when.
(Of course spectators have been known to be responsible for illegal positions on a board, as anybody who plays chess with a 3-year old in the vicinity can attest)
I still like the idea of capturing the king - why bother summoning an arbiter? Just take the king and be done with it!
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: RE: Invakiev
Tisdall (who I respect quite a bit, if only for his wonderful little book) has some harsh words via twitter...
Losing all respect for Inarkiev. How on earth can you expect to win like that? #RiyadhChess>
Since we're in forum land, we can also cite some of the gossipy comments which followed, suggesting Inarkiev might have a "history":
<Eivind Salen @EivindSalen 29 Dec 2017
Against the world champion - everyone will know, lots of people will scrutinize your past = bad for your reputation. Strange.>
Jonathan Tisdall @GMjtis 29 Dec 2017
Not if he is a serial offender. Scrutiny will determine that I expect. Rumors already flying about his history.
<Eivind Salen 29 Dec 2017
Yes, I heard Christensen on NRK. I will also check the Russian chess cites.>
Jonathan Tisdall @GMjtis 29 Dec 2017
It certainly appears deliberate from the circumstantial evidence.
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: <Johan-Sebastian Christansen, Norway's second player in the World Cup, believes that Iniarkev tried to cheat on victory.|
- Could it have been on purpose?
- Yes, I think so. I talked to others as mentioned that he (Inarkiev, journ.anm) has done this earlier, said Christiansen who won his first party.>
(Google translated from original no)
|Jan-03-18|| ||WorstPlayerEver: I'd like to forgive him; it must be a real drag to be named after Turd Guevara.|
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: Well, some fans must remain...
(Lack of) timing is key!
|Jan-03-18|| ||nok: <At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.> |
What's unclear is whether the arbiter can restart the game ten minutes after the signing.
|Jan-03-18|| ||zanzibar: <nok> Ah, that's a good point, as upon signing the scoresheet a player may elect to leave the playing hall.|
The exact time and place of a continuation might need to be negotiated.
|Jan-06-18|| ||markz: Shame on you|
|Jan-11-18|| ||ajile: IMO the game is instantly over and won for Carlsen after 27...Ne3+?? since this is an illegal move.|
Nothing after this matters since the game was on video and the illegal move can be 100% documented. It's like a NHL or NFL challenge on a big play. The crowd can yell and cheer all they want but the review after the play decides the issue.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·