Letters to the Editor
by GM Alex Baburin
Dear Alex,
I’d like to share some observations regarding the tournament in Nalchik. First, there are several no-shows besides the six Georgians. There is one player with a Dutch-Georgian name who forfeited to Zatonskih. There is Krush (why?) and Sebag (why?). The Georgian-German Kachiani showed.
Second, organisers had many days’ warning of the Georgian no-shows. For the 64-K.O. format it was obviously necessary to induct replacements, of whom Russia & Ukraine boast many candidates. But then it would have been necessary to change the pairings at the last minute, and some player would have protested that she had prepared for the wrong opponent. Tough!
Third, the decision to forfeit S. Foisor, who overstepped in a speed game with K + N vs. Socko’s K + N. In an incredibly literal reading of the rule, it was decided that a poor player could get herself mated! Not so, self-mate requires skill! This also applies to positions with K + B vs. K + B (opposite squared) and K + N vs. K + B.
So if Foisor had only a king, it would have remained a draw. You can get mated by K + N too vs. your. K + R. What would the appeal committee have decided if Foisor had a rook?
Monica Socko too showed poor sportsmanship.
What a bloody mess! The organisers have achieved their own self-mate. Not, of course, as bloody as the squares of South Ossetia.
Yours,
Anthony Saidy, IM
Well said IM Saidy. Socko shouldn’t claim for a win in such a ridiculous position. It’s poor sportsmanship on her part.
Nonsense. I think Saidy’s piece is the sort of rant that the web encourages.
The FIDE rule is carefully worded to include the possibility of suicidal helpmate to underline the requirement not to assume capability on the part of the players.
The rules were, eventually, applied correctly, no thanks to the arbiter and a.n.other standing by.
Those rules are in affect for at least 10 years. It seems like nobody knew them until now.
‘The FIDE rule is carefully worded to include the possibility of suicidal helpmate to underline the requirement not to assume capability on the part of the players.’
What a long and boring sentence, say I. FIDE rules are made by the same people who don’t know them, right??
By way, who is signed under the FIDE rules of chess? Who is behind the armageddon tht awaits teh human chess race?
Here at least we have anonymouses signed.
Socko shouldn’t claim for a win in such a ridiculous position.
Why not? She didn’t write the rules, and it’s not her job to decide to overlook a particular rule just because you and I don’t like the result it produces. She did precisely the sporting thing.
The FIDE rule is carefully worded to include the possibility of suicidal helpmate
Exactly. Socko and the committee had no choice but to do what they did. The arbiter, however, seems to have decided in a moment of awful majesty what the rule should say instead of what it actually does say. Discipline would seem to be entirely in order here. What kind of oil we ought to boil the rule-writers in is also worth discussion.
What we all seem to agree on is that the rule is stupid. Inserting a phrase on the order of “A player may be assumed to choose an inferior, but not wholly irrational line” would do wonders to improve it.
There are many smart people here, however until now I naver saw someone posting a better rule. So please, I’m waiting.
Don’t decribe this particular case, write a rule that would be appliable to all cases.
I’m waiting.
P.S.: I’m quite old, so please don’t take too much time 😉
The mistake is using blitz and especially armaggedon to decide a classical chess tournament.
The rules are good to be clear. Play with increment atleast would prevent some absurd situations. It would be no better if Socko just had, say, a pawn nowhere near promotion while the opponent was a queen up, and she won on time.
FIDE rules are muy stupido.
Maybe Socko’s opponent could have stopped the clocks and claimed a draw by saying ‘I intend never to move my knight to any other squares than e5 and c4 (say) so Socko can not mate me so I claim a draw’
It would be nice to allow such statements- and if someone makes a mistaken claim they have to stick to whatever they promised (a bit like when you claim your next intended move makes 3-fold repetition)
Socko could hardly argue then if the clocks were stopped before the end (which should be allowed even in blitz if there especially if there is no increment). Socko could hardly say ‘Play on even though I can’t force your knight from e5/c4 and when your knight is on those squares I can not possibly mate you’
Saidy has proven to be illogical and biased. If you win under the rules, as a sportsman you are obliged to claim the win. The rules are clear. If Socko kindly (and against the rules) gives a draw then she LOSES the armageddon game.
She won by the rules and Saidy thinks she should voluntarily go home and leave Foisor in Nalchik? Why, Anthony, why?
The pairing was also governed by the RULES. Isn’t the US a country with rule-of-law? FIDE did nothing wrong.
Just play with increment to get rid of most such cases.
The FIDE rules are correct. Just because both sides do not have enough mating material but can mate each other if assisted by the opponent, does not make the reasoning behind the rule wrong.
Bottomline: If there’s a possibility of mate (poor play or not) by either side, then the person whose clock falls first, loses. That’s what the FIDE rule is about.
Well said Saidy.
There are more and more stupidities at FIDE, each year worse.
The only way to save that would be to throw our absolutely all of the FIDE officers and to replace them by others, elected by GM and IM, by nobody else.
Probably some stupid rules would disappear immediately, like the “always 50 moves”: even if you can demonstrate a win in 51, the rule is prevalent – poor chess.
Socko clearly knew the rule. Right after the game she demonstrated that a checkmate is possible and then whe was explaining how the other player has to stop the clock and claim a draw. So she was right, according to the rules.
However, the other player was concentrating on the board and had only about 2 seconds available to stop the clock once it got down to just the kings and knights.
This seems like an unjust situation to me. I think the rule needs to be reevaluated, and I suspect that will be done by FIDE.
I’m still waiting and I’m not getting any younger.
One anon said “Inserting a phrase on the order of ‘A player may be assumed to choose an inferior, but not wholly irrational line’ would do wonders to improve it.”
That type of rule us used by the American Contract Bridge League. It can include bad play but not irrational play.
The USCF rule is different from the FIDE rule in this area. There the defending player can claim “insufficient losing chances”. That is defined that a 1400 player would have less than 10% chance of losing the position to a master, with both having sufficient time.
My 700 rated daughter could draw K+N vs. K+N against a world champion.
One thing though, the FIDE rule is objective, it depends on the material. The other rule takes some judgement.
Thats your improvement???
Thats so vagoue and open to interpretation that it would steer up even more confussion (and in that case rightly so). Everybody would interpretate it his own way.
The more i read this blog and other forums, the more i realise that the problem is somewehere else:
People don’t differentiate between classical, rapid and blitz!
Thos are three very different forms of chess, each with their own set of rules.
Of course in classical and in rapid game you can claim a draw in K+N vs. K+N and EVERY arbiter will adjucate it as a draw. But blitz is different. BLITZ IS TIME PLAY. You play on time from move one. If you are able to win in the process, thats fine, but basically you are playing for time from move one. You move quickly so that your opponent has to move quickly too, and by diong that he will make mistakes or just lose on time.
THE RULES ARE JUST FINE!
That’s not “my” improvement – that is the USCF rule.
This cure is worse than the disease.
The cure of increment is not worse than the disease.
The solution is to have chess players play chess without arbiters present.
IM Anthony, Saidy is correct.
konicol
IM Anthony, Saidy is correct.
konicol