The Chessdom team just sent me the following:
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
Source: official website
Yes, like explained before.
Rules only talk about “enough material to mate” and not about “enough material to force mate”.
There was enough material to mate when black ran out of time, hence white wins.
This is nothing new. This rule is in effect for at least 10 years.
“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 might make sense in a game between unskilled players but a high levels it’s plain stupid to consider the ‘unskilled player’ might do.
Additionally I don’t even think an ‘unskilled player’ would be mated in this position, more like a ‘suicidal player’.
This is just different wording for
“if the ckeckmate can’t occur by any sequence of legal moves.”
The ruleas are perfectly OK, the only sad thing is that GM’s don’t know them and even sader, the arbiters don’t seem to know them either. That why they made the wrong decision first. Afterwards they looked up the FIDE handbook and saw that Socko is right.
I would made the correct decision outright.
Once again we can see that Armagedon is a total absurdity.
This is called a word championship – it becomes an absurd random thing.
A tie has to be broken somehow.
It is no more absurd than a penalty shoot-out.
Agreed – totally bizarre that arbiters and Appeals Committees even have to think about this. It’s clearly a win for White.
Only K-K, KB-K and KN-K are dead drawn.
Not only those- I have had position (on internet game) where it is impossible for either side to mate as the pawns are locked- but paradoxically your opponent can still play until you lose on time there on the internet- while you might actually be mating with your last knight, and your opponent purposely runs out of time to draw it! (I have experienced both situations on the onternet)
I say FIDE rules make more sense.
If there was incremental time then it’s a bit stupid if a player is able to make the other have to play for 50 moves when both just have a knight. The rules were designed for quickplay finishes, where either player could definately claim and be awarded a draw by the arbiter. I think with incremental times the rules should be changed so that either player can claim a draw with such material, when a draw is certain. MJW
I’ve just checked the rules, to see what the time control was:
3. 8. Tie-breaks
3. 8. 1. Rounds 1-5
3. 8. 1. 1 If the scores are level after the regular games, after a new drawing of colours, two (2) tie break games shall be played. The games shall be played using the electronic clock starting with 25 minutes on the clock for each player with an addition of 10 seconds after each move.
3. 8. 1. 2 If the scores are level after the games in paragraph 3. 8. 1. 1, then, after a new drawing of colours, 2 five-minute games shall be played with the addition of 10 seconds after each move.
3. 8. 1. 3. If the score is still level, the players shall play one decisive sudden death game. The player, who wins the drawing of lots, may choose the colour. White shall receive 6 minutes, Black shall receive 5 minutes, without any addition. The winner qualifies for the next round. In case of a draw the player with the black pieces qualifies for the next round.
MJW
OK so it was a blitz sudden death game and thus there was no increment, and there is no claiming of a draw in the quickplay finish in rule 10.2 for games of less than 15 minutes each.
I personally don’t think blitz games, and definitely not sudden death games, where a draw gives black the win, should decide classical world championship matches.
Maybe FIDE are a fan of the penalty shootout in football!? But in chess it’s completely avoidable. MJW
I find it crazy that noone mentions the name of the lousy chief arbitress who made the decision. Go away with chess arbiters who got their titles by being friends with Campomanes and company.
So, FIDE, if you are reading, please update your rules to allow a claim of a draw in certain circumstances when the moves aren’t recorded, which is currently a requirement of the fifty move rule. For example, with just a 1 second increment, a cheapie win could be obtained, when the game should be a draw. It’s preposterous that a game could go on forever if the moves are not being recorded. The fifty move rule is the only safeguard, in principle, to incremental time controls, and there must be consideration for increments too short for recording of moves to be practical. Mark Weidman MJW
The arbiter could count the moves for the 50-move rule if the moves weren’t recorded. I’ve done that in scholastic tournaments.
Last year, IM Josh Friedel wrote on USCF website about how he lost R+K vs N+K because he didn’t know that FIDE rules differ from USCF in this case. Otherwise he could easily have played RxN and drawn.
>Only K-K, KB-K and KN-K are dead drawn.
Of course KB-KR is a draw, because there are no checkmate positions with the bishop.
Also other positions eg. e the pawns are locked and neither side can enter the ohter side at all are draws by FIDE.Each side cou;d even have a bishop banging into their own pawns each too.
“Last year, IM Josh Friedel wrote on USCF website about how he lost R+K vs N+K because he didn’t know that FIDE rules differ from USCF in this case. Otherwise he could easily have played RxN and drawn.”
Thats HIS problem. It is very very sad that even titled players don’t know the rules. Perhaps FIDE should make some sort of exam which the player has to pass before awarding the titles.
It takes more than just knowing how the pieces move to be a chess player.
Thanks for the correction.
That raises an interesting question- if a game is both USCF rated and FIDE rated can the result be put down differently at the same time ( a draw under FIDE but win under USCF or vice versa) just on account of their different rules in situations as above when time runs out?
According to the current situation – yes the reuslt should be different.
But rules should be unified. USCF is probably the national federation whose rules differ from FIDE’s rules the most.
http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus
Is that George Makropoulos in the grey suit at the 5 minute mark? He clearly does not understand the rules, i.e. that it’s not about forced-mate but possible-mate. But isn’t he something ‘big’ in FIDE.
I don’t speak Russian so I don’t know whether anyone told him straight away that the criteria was ‘possible mate’ not ‘forcible mate’.
Having looked around at a few pics, I don’t think it’s Makropoulos in the grey suit.
Maybe one of the Russian hosts or a Romanian.
… a tough way to lose though.
It’s Makropoulos in the end. Even if you don’t understand Russian “Makropoulos” is still “Makropoulos” in Russian too 😉
I was premature in thanking someone for the correction to my statement “Only K-K, KB-K and KN-K”.
In fact, their corrections seem to be errors, lapsing again into the idea that mate cannot be forced. All that is required is that helpmate is possible.
Blocked Pawns can be unblocked by saccing them. KBKR is a win for Black after saccing the B. There are even KNNK mates if Black is particularly suicidal.
However, KBKB is a draw with same colour Bishops.
what a joke! so black is penalized for having an extra knight whereas k + N vs K is a draw when flag falls. Enough of this flag pulling nonsense. If no reasonable mating possibilities exist, it is drawn!
-Justin Daniel
Believe it or not, sacking material at this kind of moments is part of the chess strategy too. And good blitz players know that.
anon 6:19 can’t you imagine all 8 pawns blocked and impossible to break? eg white has a3, b4, c3, d4, e5, f6, g5, h4,
and black has a4,b5,c4,d5,e6,f7,g6,h5?
Kings are locked out- each side could even have a bishop of the same colour as their pawns- this is impossible to win by either side even with any help from either side.
anon 6:19 You only need 4 pawns each too so not that unlikely- eg b4b5, d4d5, f4f5, h4h5 (4th rank white pawns, 5th rank black pawns), and still if white has a black bishop, black a white bishop- both sides can not mate each other with all the help from the other side you like.
Just for completeness- K+3P versus K+3P can be a draw under FIDE with all pawns locked eg b3b4 e3e4 h3h4. Where all entry squares are covered so no series of legal moves can lead to mate for either side (kings locked behind their own pawns)
If there is no legal series of moves that would lead to a mate (for a side that DIDN’T run out of time) then the game is declared drawn.
You don’t need any locked pawns for that.
For example, if white ran out of time in this position
1r4k1/5ppp/7b/p4P2/2p1P3/2P5/P1P4Q/RK4R1 w – – 0 0
This game should be declared drawn because there is no legal sequence of moves that would lead to black mating white!
The rules are just fine and very logical.
I agree but I was correcting a post that said only K-K, KB-K and KN-K was it the case that there were no series of moves (even help mate) for one side to win with, who denied the blocked pawns possibility. That is games that are automatic draws under FIDE.