Once, in a game/30 vs a rather highly rated player (like 2300 or so), I wound up on the strong side of a Rook and Bishop vs Rook (and no pawns) endgame with about a minute on my clock and five seconds increment. I made an illegal move (overlooked a check) and, flustered, resigned, thinking that blitz rules applied. Of course, they don't and you don't instantly lose that way in "action" chess, but I only found that out later. I also found later that the USCF rated the game both as action AND as "normal". D'oh.

<Petrosianic: To say that she knowingly and voluntarily refused to engage in <legal> behavior on the grounds that it was unsporting is not supported by the facts.>

<I didn't say that.> Except that you did. As in your post asking <squaredance> about <utssb>, you did not quote the relevant part of the referenced post. Petrosianic was talking about when you said:

<This may be legal but Krush didn't move within her opponent's time because she wanted to play fairly.>

Sorry to hear about your loss- but live and learn I guess. You shouldn't have resigned.

My craziest moment was a controversy that came close to happening, but was averted by the assistant TD... In a tournament a few years ago, I was able to reach a K + R vs K + R ending (no pawns!) versus a player about 300 points higher rated than myself. I had about five minutes left on my clock, my opponent, about 30 minutes.

After about seven or eight moves, I decided to claim a draw based on insufficient winning chances. My request was declined by the head TD (!). However, after the assistant TD challenged him on his decision, he finally ruled the draw.

Actually, I think the main mistake was thinking it was a relatively meaningless action game, which is why I resigned so offhandedly, but as it turns out it was rated normally. Had I realized that, I wouldn't have assumed blitz rules applied, of course.

As far as this Irina affair goes, I see this as a positive thing for future championships. No more Armageddon tiebreakers! If there must be a blitz playoff, use inc and be patient - the players can't split the two-game sets indefinitely any more than players infallibly hold serve in tennis.

No wonder. She knew what she was doing.

< Augalv: Now, is it unfair to use every legal competitive advantage to try to win a game? >

<And Petrosianic pointed that the evidence shows that she moved that way not because she "wanted to play fairly", but because she thought it was illegal to play otherwise.>

Well if that's how you are going to put it of course it's going to make little sense. But that's not what I said. What I said is that what Zatonskih did may be legal but IMO not fair. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's fair which are two different concepts.

I guess that another way of saying this is, Zatonskih is simply a better blitz player than Krush is. This doesn't mean pure chess knowledge of course, but rather the mechanics involved in playing blitz.

I think that this is the problem- you do not understand what he was saying, or what he was referring to. The comment that you objected to ("I didn't say that") was

<Petrosianic: To say that she knowingly and voluntarily refused to engage in <legal> behavior on the grounds that it was unsporting is not supported by the facts.>

Once again, what Petrosianic was talking about (and he can correct me if I am wrong) was your statement

<This may be legal but Krush didn't move within her opponent's time because she wanted to play fairly.>

What makes your claim dubious is the fact that Krush herself in her original letter (to quote directly: "Obviously, making moves before your opponent completes theirs is illegal"). It is clear that Irina thought that the behavior was illegal. Therefore, there is no evidence that she acted the way she did because "she wanted to play fairly". Based on what we know, she played the way she did because she wanted to follow the rules.

In other words,

<To say that she knowingly and voluntarily refused to engage in <legal> behavior on the grounds that it was unsporting is not supported by the facts.>

As for your thoughts on what is fair- sure, everybody has the right to their opinion. My objection to your arguments has nothing to do with the fact that you think the rule is unfair. What I object to is questioning another player for following a rule that you happen to disagree with.

<Lutwidge>

<As far as this Irina affair goes, I see this as a positive thing for future championships. No more Armageddon tiebreakers!>

A tiebreak should only be used to determine indivisible prizes (a trophy or an invitation, for example), and if so, it should represent a contest relevant to the event being decided. It is rather absurd to decide the U.S. Championship on blitz, just like it would be silly to play off a 40/2 time control for the U.S. Blitz Championship.

It makes sense.

<SetNoEscapeOn: What I object to is questioning another player for following a rule that you happen to disagree with.>

I'm Sorry, maybe I overreacted.

Well, this is not an argument against Armageddon games, but rather an objection to extra games of any length less than those employed within the main competition. Please explain your definition of "statistically meaningless". Is your intent to imply that the results are random?

Furthermore, the reasoning you are using would call into question the application of <all> "extra periods" in any form of competition. What right does Russia have to claim to have beaten the Netherlands today, when they simply won a 30 minute scrimmage after failing to prove their superiority over their opponents in a 90 minute match?

You may say that overtime as an extension of one game is different than a tie-break game to decide an entire tournament (or match), and that it is necessary to have such periods during elimination tournaments, but using them to determine a champion is different. Both statements are true, but the reasoning should still hold. Chess tie-breaks are in many ways analogous to overtime periods in other sports, and if one is intrinsically ridiculous, the other must be also.

<The best solution was mentioned by various players in this group. Have them play off at a slower time control from their houses or clubs via computer.>

If consistency between the main event and the tie-break is so valued, then why should they change venues and playing methods? If the main event was contested OTB, shouldn't the tie-break likewise be played face to face? As you know if you play both, the two experiences are quite different.

<A tie-break should only be used to determine indivisible prizes (a trophy or an invitation, for example), and if so, it should represent a contest relevant to the event being decided.>

This is your opinion- quite a valid and popular one of course, but by no means shared by all. When the Heir Apparent was asked after he won Biel last year (via an Armageddon playoff)

<You won after five tie-break games against Alexander Onischuk, with a final “Armageddon” blitz that was favorable to you. What do you think of the “tie-break” to decide between winners who have equal points, rather than relying on “Sonnenborn-Berger”?>

he answered

<It is a very interesting idea that could be replicated in other places. Of course, weariness can be a decisive factor. However, it gives a clear winner in a tournament and that is very important. Chance plays a lesser role than with the Sonnenborn-Berger point system.>.

And I daresay that based on the quality of the players alone, Biel is a much more important tournament than the US Women's Championship... Although to be fair, Chessbase opined that

<...an earth tremor was felt in Biel, during the final game, believed to have been caused by Mikhail Botvinnik revolving in his grave at the thought of a major international tournament being decided in such fashion...>

I agree with you that the money should be split, but I also agree with Magnus that it is important to have a clear winner. And, following the example of sports, rapid/ blitz tiebreaks are the best means of obtaining one of those, all things considered- practical factors, fairness, spectator interest, etc...

I think that you hit the proverbial nail on the head, with the exception that I would expand your conclusion.

You are right- the problem lies with the unseemly time scramble. And it was indeed the rules that led to this situation- although it was not only the rules (there was also the failure of either player to win during the rapid tie-breaks, the failure of Irina to win the final game earlier despite having an extra two minutes).

But again; the time scramble is what most people found revolting. Without it, the entire "Clock Punching Monkey" incident would never have taken place, and the controversy would have been avoided... And we would not be having this discussion :)

So all I would want to add to your post is that if we need to change the rules, we should change the rules in such a way that time scrambles are avoided- not jump to the conclusion rapid and blitz tie-breaks are intrinsically bad.

There have already been two changes to the rules suggested that would have eliminated the preconditions for this controversy without fundamentally changing the tie-break structure. The first is the suggestion of <Rook File> among others that the final game(s) be played via computer. This really does not mean that there won't be a time scramble, but it does take the act of physically moving the pieces out of the equation, which certainly was the key problem with the monkey controversy...

The second suggestion, and my preferred solution, is simply to use time increments of say, five seconds per move for all of the tie-break games. In fact, I think that the Fischer Clock should be used in all chess games. This goes back to the reason that clocks were introduced to chess in the first place- it wasn't to award fast play or to produce time scrambles, it was simply to make sure that games finished within a reasonable amount of time (like when Morphy waited thirteen hours or whatever for Paulsen to move). An increment would mean a much higher correlation between the position on the board and the result of the game.

She argued that they were unfair, but stopped short of refusing to play another one.

<she cant be complaining about armagedon if she knew beforehand this could happen.>

Yes, that's the proverberial elephant in the living room in this whole mess.

<Fischer wouldnt play the tournament if he didnt like that tiebreak format.>

Hard to say. In the end, Fischer wouldn't play any tournaments, good or bad. It's hard to imagine him consenting to ANY blitz style playoff.

The only two tournaments Fischer ever played in that had any kind of tiebreak playoffs would have been his two Candidates Tournaments, and it's not really clear what the tiebreak rules were for those.

At Curacao, the playoff for SECOND place was a Best of 8 Games match (all classical games) between Keres and Geller. One could assume that the playoff match for first place, if one had been needed, would have been at least that long.

We actually use a Bronstein clock here in the States where we have time delay - i.e. the clock doesn't start decrementing for x amount of seconds. But I can agree with you that blitz playoffs are more palatable without the "Clock-Punching Monkey" aspect.

Of course, I don't necessarily agree with you (or Magnus) regarding the absolute necessity of having a clear winner, just for its own sake, in a tournament. I think it's an area where neither of us will convince the other.

<COMIC RELIEF> Or they could probably have success breaking the tie by having both players spin around a baseball bat every 2 minutes. </COMIC RELIEF>

Going back to the example with Tiger and Rocco (or any PGA playoff). Whatever method they use, at least they do not have to make all their shots in 5 minutes. There is a greater element of relevant skill in that case.

I have a quick question - how would this have proceeded if there was a tie involving Michael Aigner? In such a case, an Armageddon playoff would not only be unfair, it would be illegal.

To a lesser extent, you could use examples of older players who have the capacity to pull off a miracle tournament, but lack the motor skills they had 20 years ago.

Ironically, the fairest is not always the most practical. To me, the fairest would be to play it off the next day starting at G/1 hour, and then if even after 2, infinite pairs of G/30 until a winner is crowned. 5 second time delay would be used. Obviously, venue availability, accommodations, work schedules, etc. make this a very challenging option.

I think we've pretty much come to several consensus agreements, even though there still are differences in the details.