Socko – Foisor Armageddon video:
http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
“The” Armageddon video from Nalchik
About Author
Socko – Foisor Armageddon video:
http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus
The arbiter Zsuzsa Verocci should be immediately replaced. Their deputy arbiters too. Socko explained them the rules and demonstrated that mate is possible, but they needed 3 hours to come to the correct decision.
Socko was right all along.
Isn’t that guy with the glasses something? He was wrong all along and then he even accuses the camera man that he destroyed the end position. But he didn’t even touch anything. Even the camera man knew the rules.
In fact seems like everybody knew the rules except the ones who should know them.
It’s puzzling that the one arbiter seemed to think it is required that mate is forceable, while it is enough that it is possible against most unskilled play (10.2).
Nevertheless, I wasn’t aware for example that in KB-KR, there is no mate possible for the bishop side unlike in KB-KB (different square color), or in KB-KN. One of the commentators here pointed to it.
Also, they were under “maximum stress”: World Championship, an armageddon game, TV cameras, and an unusual outcome of the game. Four stress factors at once! 🙂
That is why I can understand that such mistakes happen, although they shouldn’t.
A correction to what I just wrote above: That’s referring to article 9.6, not 10.2. Article 10.2 is the one that doesn’t apply to blitz. Sorry.
It was clear:
The only one who knew the rules was Macropulous.
FIDE is the most honest sports organization. Only honest people would post a video so embarassing for them as organizers.
Foisor has good cheating blitz techniques, it’s not fair that she lost.
Socko shook hands, then complained, she is not with a clear concience, will notbe able to sleep for weeks because she cheated the whole organization.
The guy with the camera was annoying.
All arbiters and arbitressess must take the Nikolpoulos test for basic knowledge. If they fail, they must pay a fee to FIDE not to lose their diploma.
The coolest guy was the video camera man, whoever that genius was. If I were there I’d break his face with his camera for taping me.
The arbiter Susan Verocci was the colest of all, chewing on that gum all the time and giving a damn what the players or anyone is saying! Way to go grandma!
Was great seeing Macro tell Markulla to shut his face.
And you up there, first ask Zsuzsa Veroci how much she is getting paid for this, then complain.
Socko deserved to win. When some pieces were knock down she not only picked up her own but also the ones from her opponent. And all this on her own time!!!
The only reason Socko was picking up the pieces was because it was the only way for her to win!!! If she had eaten all Black pieces, she could not checkmate with the Knight only!!! Nobody deserved to win that stupid game, they should have played mud boxing for finals.
Each continent has but only one good chess arbiter. All others must bow to him (they are all male). Then come International Arbiters, they are almost good, too. All others can go dishwashing.
Why is FIDE the most latest with reports from this tournament??? Never mind, all is forgiven because they posted this video of joy and harmony between chess people – GENS UNA SMUMUS!!
She picked up opponents pieces when there were more than one black piece on the board.
Besides she could punch the clock back and demanded from her opponent to pick them up on her time. If she done that Foisor would lose on time even sooner.
It was a moral victory as well as a victory according to all the rules.
the whole tournament is an embarrassment.
And yet you are following it 🙂
That should tell you something.
‘And yet you are following it :)’
I am not following it!! If it wasn’t for Susan’s blog, I would have never known it’s on!! It’s here I saw the link to the video of the century.
Long live Macro and FIDE!!! Let the Armageddon begin!!!
Aw come ON!
It brings up a strange situation. You can have a king and rook versus a king and knight, but if you run out of time you lose. If you didn’t have the rook, it would be a draw!
There must have been very very very good reasons for FIDE qualified arbiters making this rule.I trust them on this one wholeheartedly. I also guess these rules were made because of humans who tend to cheat wherever possible. No such rules would be necessary for machines.
I also think FIDE rules are better than USCF rules.
You could easily substitute Armageddon Chess for its football equivalent the penalty shootout. Everyone agrees it’s awful that it should decide a tournament, everyone says they hate them, they’re only good for the following things and that’s provide low quality drama, suspense and a brief adrenalin rush, usually at the expense of quality play.
I’ve just finished watching the Biel tie-breaks on the playchess server and after all blitz games were drawn we ended up with Onishcuk/Carslen in an Armageddon game, simple rules White gets 5 mins, Black gets 4 mins, White must win and Black only has to draw. Which to his credit Carlsen played brilliantly and is now declared the tournament winner.
Isn’t this a bit shallow though, surely it’s almost impossible for White to force a win. If Black plays the opening safe White will inevitably be forced to play sub-standard moves in his quest for the point, after all isn’t chess about the position on the board and not a pre-determined outcome.
Is there an alternative to these games, well yes in short, noone wins outright, the tournament is simply tied and winnings shared equally. What’s the disgrace in having a tournament finishing with players tied 1st equal? Absolutely nothing IMO.
I enjoyed Biel even though the players were some of the lower echelons of the elite, but Carlsen, Radjabov and Onischuk played excellent stuff and whilst Judit Polgar wasn’t her sparkling self, she was still very solid. I therefore think it a crying shame that this sort of chess can be the differentiating factor.
Appeals Committee on the Socko – Foisor case
World Women Chess Championship 2008
The Appeals Committee met today 31.08.2008 at 20.00 hrs to examine a protest made by the player Ms Monika Socko regarding her game with Sabina-Francesca Foisor.
The complainant fulfilled the conditions concerning the $ 500 deposit
The protest has been examined under the provision of Article 3.17, par. 3.17.1, point a) and d) of the Regulations for the Women’s World Chess Championship.
The protest related to the sudden death game between Ms Monika Socko (white) and Ms Sabina-Francesca Foisor (black) where, in the final position, both players had a king and a knight each.
The flag of black fell indicating that the game was lost on time.
However the Chief Arbiter decided that the game was drawn based on Article 9.6 of the Laws of Chess. The Chief Arbiter indicated that in order to achieve a position where white threatens to mate black in the next move, needs that black intentionally places his king and knight so that white can mate in the next move (White: Kc7,Nb6 – Black: Ka8,Na7).
Article 9.6 states that, quote “The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position is legal.”
In her protest, Ms Monika Socko contended that she had won the game based on the fact that the flag of her opponent had fallen.
Having considered the arguments presented by the player in her protest and the decision of the Chief Arbiter, the Appeals Committee has decided that indeed based on the provisions of Article 9.6, playing in a most unskilled manner can result in the position indicated by the Chief Arbiter which can lead to a checkmate.
Therefore, the Appeals Committee has decided that the game is a win for white.
Georgios Makropoulos, Chairman
Lewis Ncube, member
Lakhdar Mazouz, member
You just finished watchin the armageddon between Carelsen and Onischuk???
From where did you copy this?
That was over a year ago!!!
“I am not following it!! If it wasn’t for Susan’s blog, I would have never known it’s on!! It’s here I saw the link to the video of the century.”
If you are not following it then you can’t say that “the whole tournament is an embarrassment” ???
You don’t know that unless….. unless you are following it afterall 🙂
P.S.: Normally when people are not interested in something then they don’t read and write about it 😛
So if you read this, then you are definatelly following it.
Surely there must be soe provision for claiming a draw, isn’t there? I haven’t looked at the rules but if they don’t allow a player to claim a draw with knight against knight they’re even stupider than FIDE usually is. And it looked to me as though Foisor was indeed claiming a draw; admittedly she didn’t stop the clock to do it but with these stupid digital clocks she probably didn’t know how.
It’s unbelievable that Makropoulos is still paying himself to be the appeals judge. The man has no shame whatsoever.
Well, what do you know? As far as I can see from FIDE’s rules, you can’t claim a draw in blitz. So for example you can play for a win with bishop against pawn; in fact as long as you have more time than your opponent such a position is basically won since the 50-move rule doesn’t apply either.
Wonderful. I trust Kramnik and Anand will have studied this ending in preparation for their match, since IIRC that can end up in an Armageddon if the worst happens.
I wonder whether there is any sport burdened by a stupider governing body than chess. There are doubtless even more corrupt ones, but I can’t think of another one where sheer stupidity is the dominant characteristic to quite such an extent.
Like I said before, can you write a better rule? I would like to hear it.
You can’t claim draw in blitz because blitz IS time play from move 1. With classical time controls you can claim it and every arbiter on this world will grant it.
Don’t mix classical, rapid and blitz chess. Those are 3 different things.
The rules are just fine the way they are.
You’re kidding. Of course I could write a better rule. Hell, the people who run the ICC already have. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I’m pretty sure knight -v- knight is a draw if the flag falls there.
I’m waiting for this better rule.
‘I wonder whether there is any sport burdened by a stupider governing body than chess. There are doubtless even more corrupt ones, but I can’t think of another one where sheer stupidity is the dominant characteristic to quite such an extent.’
It’s not really that the chess governing bodies are stupid. The fact is that they are on the average a lot smarter than the chess players they represent.
Corruption is another matter to which I have no access of information to.
There are a few dunderheads here and there, can we agree on that?
Let’s start comparing. Name one official and one player and we discuss who is smarter?
‘I’m waiting for this better rule.’
You’ll die waiting unless you write it yourself, dunder.
Yes, I can see that.
It’s very interesting how so many people say “I can come up with a better rule”, yet we didn’t see any of the proposals here.
Let me put it this way. I’ve played blitz, often for money, with Yugoslav hustlers at continental opens, with drunken grandmasters in a bar in Norway, ditto grandmasters in pubs in England, random strangers at pubs in England, in that weird place of Bill Goichberg’s in new York with the sewage on the floor, and probably some other places that don’t come to mind. In all of those games, if anyone tried to win on time with knight against knight, they’d be laughed out of the game and there’d probably be a fistfight. If it is so universally accepted wherever blitz is played that, for example, perpetual check is a draw and not (as the FIDE rules have it) a win for the side with more time, then one suspects that FIDE have cocked it up as usual.
I’m not saying Makropoulos and Co couldn’t pass an IQ test, but they have a capacity for making remarkably dim-witted decisions,