I published about the Q&A related to the recent Frank K. Berry U.S Women’s Championship in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Here is another response from the organizer Tom Braunlich:
Hi Phil,
Just a quick answer, as I have written about the playoff controversy elsewhere online extensively.
I’m sorry, but your questions seem rather hyperbolic and opinionated to me. What exactly do these observers believe was “degrading” or “demeaning” or “deviant” about the playoff?
• Is it the fact that the playoff (after four previous games that were split) came down to a wild mutual time scramble? Such time scrambles are a rare but definite possibility inherent in any chess game that is not using a delay or increment on the clock (including tournament games, not just blitz). This is not the first one to ever happen. But this time it was captured on video. Were all the chess games played before the invention of the Fischer Clock also deviant because they allowed a scramble like this to occasionally happen? Several big international tournaments recently had time controls with no increment on the clock — the 2008 M-Tel Masters in Bulgaria, for example. A time scramble could happen during these events (and I think did happen in a few cases). Was this choice of time control “degrading” and “deviant”? Of course not.
• Is it because the players are observed in the video beginning their move before the opponent punches the clock? This is an awkward possibility inherent in any chess game time scramble, including slow-play tournament games. It happens frequently in time pressure, but could theoretically happen at any time. When the time pressure is mutual, the problem is magnified and it gets ugly. Unfortunately the rules for moving the pieces are ambiguous and controversial on this point. Several imminent International Arbiters, such as Geurt Gijssen, to name just one I’m aware of, interpret the rules to be that it is legal to do so. If observers don’t like this, then they should demand the FIDE rules committee do something to clarify the rule.
• Is it because a blitz armageddon game was used in a playoff? Neither the USCF nor the FIDE rules discuss playoffs very much at all, and give very few guidelines to organizers, but it is my understanding that they both specifically mention blitz playoffs as a possibility, and the FIDE tournament rules even use armageddon blitz (5 to 4 with no increment) as an example of a playoff method if limited time is available. There are plenty of precedents for the use of such playoffs for important tournaments, (the 2003 U.S. Women’s Championship, for instance), and nothing in the rules that I am aware of against it. I’m not trying to justify it as the best playoff method — but I am stating that this indicates there is certainly nothing “deviant” about using it.
I’m sorry to give a flippant answer to your “official questions”, but trying to affix blame for the controversial playoff seems weird and inappropriate to me. I think a little bit of emotional reaction to the video is going on here due to the distressing final moments it shows, which has put a spotlight on it. It is clear that, at a minimum, if a blitz or armageddon playoff is used an increment or delay on the clock should be included to help mitigate the worst aspects of a time scramble if one happens. But unfortunately this was not the standard practice before this game and it has become clear only with the benefit of hindsight.
I have written extensively about this controversy on Chess Life Online and already addressed a lot of these issues. I have also received a lot of feedback about the need for playoffs in the first place, and the best playoff methods, and I am currently writing an in-depth article about the “theory of playoffs” for Chess Life Online which I hope Jennifer will publish in a week or two. It will include interviews with a lot of experts on the subject, and will try to present the issues coherently and to make conclusions. I invite the readers of Chessville and Chessbase to participate in that.
🙂 TOM
It’s still a horrible playoff system.
I think a better topic would be a discussion on systems/methods for tie-breaks and/or playoffs.
Time would be better spent trying to change the future rather than the past.
After a player leaves the playing room, it is too late to protest!
YAWN!
Next update please not before there are NEW FACTS, instead of endless blah.
It’s a sport and an excellent playoff. Who would like another 9-day playoff? Innes sounded just like a unreasonable crying baby. The current chess culture is reflexed well on ICC, where the most popular time control is 3 minutes exact. Bloggers who decry armageddon playoff sound like have not played any internet chess.
The trend is more and more short time control competitions. The Olympic style First International Mind Sport Games, which include chess, bridge, go, checker, and xiangqi, will be held in Beijing after the Summer Olympic Games this year. There will be more than 100 countries represented. The just released official FIDE time controls for chess are: speed chess (5 medals) – 25 minutes plus 5 seconds increment; and blitz chess (5 medals) – 3 minutes plus 2 seconds increment.
Take your “armageddon playoff is not chess and degrading” to your grave!
Yeah, and what’s wrong with making one player begin the speed playoffs 10-15 minutes after she her gueling long time control game finished, while the other contestant had hours of rest? They both knew the rules before the tournament began, and everybody else does it too. So there.
When the rule (tie break decided in blitz) is absurd, it means the organizers are not very good: They have to choose something valuable before the tournament.
It seems to me that these ‘officials’ are trying to justify what happenend in the game with the fact that is was actually recorded on video. Is like if they were implying that if such video didn’t exist….there wouldn’t be any complaints. Is this like saying that the Rodney King beating was wrong…only because it was capture on video?
The argument in this article reminds me of an old saying about Democracy: “It’s the worst system of government in the world… except for all the other ones.”
I think ANY system is going to run into problems. If we imagine the flip side of a series of Quick-Blitz-Armageddon games- an open ended series of classical time control games.
If, by chance, THAT system were to leave us with a long line of uncontested or lackluster draws, we, then, would be complaining about how lousy a system it was.
Given the fact that finances are tight (preventing the rental of a venue for an indeterminate time), and that a clear winner and figurehead for US chess is desired, This year’s system might be as good as any other.
Brad Hoehne