< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·
|Apr-10-15|| ||Tiggler: Just asking the question: Cui Bono?|
|Apr-11-15|| ||Conrad93: Akobian is a complete coward.
How can words of encouragement distract you?
He was looking for an easy win and free rating points to make up for his lack luster performance.
The real loser is not So.
|Apr-11-15|| ||MagnusVerMagnus: This seems so petty, what is up with Akobian? Was he getting drilled so hard that he needed to resort to calling his mommy. Hey DUDE, this is your compatriot why you gonna do him like this? IMHO he should never be invited again to the US Championship, go back to Armenia.|
|Apr-11-15|| ||Pyke: <MagnusVerMagnus: This seems so petty, what is up with Akobian? Was he getting drilled so hard that he needed to resort to calling his mommy. Hey DUDE, this is your compatriot why you gonna do him like this? IMHO he should never be invited again to the US Championship, go back to Armenia.>|
Please, show some respect.
Akobian did nothing wrong here. Wesley on the other hand had been warned twice. Ignoring those warnings led to forfeit.
It's as simple as that. What else should have been done?
|Apr-11-15|| ||Pyke: For anyone interested, here's Akobians take on things. |
Interview starts at around 36:30 minute mark:
The way he describes the incident seems reasonable.
|Apr-11-15|| ||Pyke: Tony Rich' take on the incident is at the 30:00 minute mark |
|Apr-11-15|| ||Appaz: Wesley So has been warned about this rule breaking by several people in the past it seems.|
In this tournament he was first reported by his good friend Sam Shankland in round 2.
He chose to disregard the warning, repeated his rule break and was warned again in a later round, this time threatened with being forfeited.
This was when he came up with this idea of making the scribbling on a separate paper.
Akobian acted in his own and chess' best interest, Wesley So is the only one who did something wrong here.
|Apr-11-15|| ||Absentee: <Conrad93: He was looking for an easy win and free rating points to make up for his lack luster performance.>|
It doesn't change the fact that it was So who insisted on breaking the rules despite knowing what the consequences would be. Akobian's behaviour might have been petty, but Rich was absolutely justified in ruling the way he did.
|Apr-11-15|| ||pinoy king: Akobian is a cheapskate, FACT.|
|Apr-11-15|| ||MarkFinan: Asbo.. So never broke any rule that has anything to do with chess the game. I hate using "other board games" as analogies but it's like putting a house on the next square to Mayfair in monopoly. Or putting your notes $$$ (NPI) under the board when you're supposed to put them next to it. Akobian is a little B***h. And don't get me wrong.. If it was the other way around the Sobots would be saying how sharp Wes was to have noticed such a thing, and how he's somehow now better than Fischer and Kasparov, I'm not stupid. But for ONCE they have a case, and Sugardom has acted disgracefully for a so called friend.|
|Apr-12-15|| ||Gypsy: <Akobian's behaviour might have been petty ...>|
<Petty> is not really the adjective that comes to mind here.
|Apr-12-15|| ||kummatmebro: It doesn't matter
Even with a forfeit Akobian is still close to the bottom of the championship list this year.
|Apr-12-15|| ||MagnusVerMagnus: <Pyke: It's as simple as that. What else should have been done?
How about talking to your friend and ask him to get rid of the note? Why run to the arbiter to forfeit him? Why lie at the interview that all you wanted to do was play Wes so much when obviously you only wanted to win so cowardly, cause what he did was despicable for a true competitor.|
|Apr-13-15|| ||Troller: < How about talking to your friend and ask him to get rid of the note?>|
This is not allowed, but surely being a chessplayer you must know that.
Akobian did the only thing he really could do. I cannot understand why people are after him, when his opponent was the one deliberately, continuously and without regard for warnings kept breaking the rules. You can argue about the severity of the penalty, but even then, it is certainly not like Wesley So was not warned.
|Apr-13-15|| ||nok: There was obviously a misunderstanding of writing on the scoresheet versus writing at all. Given that English is not So's first language, the arbiter could have given a time penalty. He used his gun instead.|
|Apr-13-15|| ||keypusher: < nok: There was obviously a misunderstanding of writing on the scoresheet versus writing at all. Given that English is not So's first language, the arbiter could have given a time penalty. He used his gun instead.>|
That's not obvious at all...obviously.
|Apr-18-15|| ||Wavy: So this guy is supposed to be a friend of Wesley. But of course points come first before friendship, right Varuzhan?|
|Apr-18-15|| ||Petrosianic: The arbiter could not have given a time penalty. There's no provision in the rules for that.|
And it defies common sense to think that after two previous warnings in this tournament and numerous warnings before hand that he was simply unclear about whether it was okay as long as you do it on another sheet of paper. The rules are very clear: players are not allowed to take notes. And it's the player's responsibility to know and obey the rules. If anything is clear, it's that So had a bad habit that he couldn't break, and saw no need to, as he thought he'd always be allowed to slide on it. Just as well that he learned otherwise on a fairly unimportant occasion.
|May-02-15|| ||TarrFisch: Anybody who wants to win a chess game by forfeit and not over the board does not deserve any respect at all.|
|May-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: <Petrosianic> No, that is incorrect. The arbiter is allowed to either increase the remaining time of the opponent or reduce the remaining time of the offending player. See http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/L..., section 13.4.|
|May-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: Why do so many posters seem to think that Akobian knew anything about the arbiter's earlier warnings to So and that he had warned him that upon his third violation that he would be forfeited? Why do they assume that these warnings were made in public? Just because Akobian was a member of the appeals committee doesn't mean that he know about the earlier warnings made to So since those would not have come up in any appeals committee discussions.|
Basically, none of the posters at this site were at the event and none of us know what really happened. We are all relying on video snippets and interviews that may not be telling the entire story.
|May-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: <MarkFinan> So violated the FIDE Laws of Chess. If these have nothing to do with the game of chess then I don't know what does.|
Now, you may disagree as to what the FIDE Laws of Chess say and that's fine, but the violations that So committed and the actions that the arbiter took are all covered in the FIDE Laws of Chess.
I think that many of the discussions on this subject would not be taking place if posters read the FIDE Laws of Chess before posting. They are pretty clear.
|May-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: <nok> The FIDE Laws of Chess are clear: "12.8 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss
of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent."|
The arbiter could have done many things but then HE would have been in violation of the FIDE Laws of Chess.
|May-02-15|| ||Absentee: <AylerKupp: I think that many of the discussions on this subject would not be taking place if posters read the FIDE Laws of Chess before posting. They are pretty clear.>|
You're overly optimistic. A lot of people would argue regardless of how well they know the rules, simply because they root for the player, or because they don't like that specific rule (that it was agreed in advance evidently doesn't matter), etc. Love conquers all. Rationality doesn't stand a chance.
|May-02-15|| ||AylerKupp: <Absentee> Sigh ... you are probably right. Resistance is futile.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 8 ·