|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-29-17
 | | offramp: Inarkiev got narked. |
|
Dec-29-17
 | | Check It Out: The game continued, 27...Ne3+ (Illegal move) 28.Kd3 whereupon Inarkiev got the arbiter since Magnus did not spot the illegal move. The arbiter initially awarded Inarkiev the win, but then made them continue from move 27 again; Inarkiev then either forfeited or resigned. Interesting state of mind Magnus must have been in to simply move his king instead of something like, “uh, dude you’re in check.” |
|
Dec-29-17
 | | Dionysius1: I can't get my head around the idea that the person who had the illegal move perpetrated against him might forfeit the game for not spotting it. Anyone got a rationale for that? |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | zanzibar: <Dionysius1> here's my reading of FIDE rules - World Blitz Championship (2017) (kibitz #48) The arbiter initially made a wrong ruling, but later corrected it (maybe after some consultation?). Here's a video of the game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ4...
And if you want to cut to the chase (well, a move or two before the illegal moves, in order to follow it properly): https://youtu.be/PZ4xeEbLajA?t=450
And here is Inarkiev's post-game interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4X...
. |
|
Dec-29-17
| | Dionysius1: Thanks for all the links. For me the mystery deepens. Why would there ever be a rule that says if my opponent makes an illegal move and I don't notice I have to forfeit the game? And if there isn't why would anyone think there was? what would I have done wrong? Still, I'll just have to let it go. |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | zanzibar: <<Dionysius> Why would there ever be a rule that says if my opponent makes an illegal move and I don't notice I have to forfeit the game? > As I just posted elsewhere - illegal moves do not forfeit a game. Instead there is a reset of position (when possible) and a time penalty (or, actually, a time bonus). |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | zanzibar: OK, apologies, but there are other rules at play here, at least as mentioned in a video given in this link: World Blitz Championship (2017) (kibitz #55) (I don't have time to dig out the specific rules cited - perhaps someone else can?) . |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | JPi: Very confusing situation indeed. It's illegal to let his King on check so Carlsen put it over... Is it an illegal move to not notice an illegal move? Pretty silly trick from Inarkiev to claim a win here. <Inarkiev got narked.> ~ In narkied I will remember this one. |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | WorstPlayerEver: I guess it's obvious that by making an illegal move subsequent moves are also illegal. But since we have modern equipment which registers everything... |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | ChessHigherCat: <Dionysius1: I can't get my head around the idea that the person who had the illegal move perpetrated against him might forfeit the game for not spotting it. Anyone got a rationale for that?> That's nothing compared to the crazy 1835 rules, courtesy of <Sally Simpson>:
Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | zanzibar: I added a post with a link to the FIDE Arbiter's Manual (2017) here: World Blitz Championship (2017) (kibitz #75) . |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | Count Wedgemore: I think it's quite clear that Inarkiev simply tried to trick Carlsen, and it almost worked. A very unsportsmanlike behaviour. |
|
| Dec-29-17 | | Mirovsk: I still don't understand why Inarkiev claimed the illegal move....it's madness...HE was the one who made the illegal move....it's very sad if the only explanation is that he was trying to cheat....playing against the champion...maybe what happened to Magnus happened to him...there was a momentary lapse... |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | MarkBuckley: Inarkiev should have simply admitted he was trying to exploit the rules instead of claiming in the interview that he didn't realize he was in check. Well, he was named after the odious "Che." Inasmuch as Carlsen appeared to be affected in the next round--who wouldn't be--organizers should keep that in mind when making up their invite lists. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | Qindarka: Seen a few comments about how Inarkiev shouldn't be getting invites. But it's not like Inarkiev ever gets invites anyway. Anyone not in the super-elite has to get by via open tournaments. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | virginmind: Even if he indeed missed that he was in check, why not simply admitting his fault in the interview (at the time of the interview the arbiter didn't change his ruling yet)? Instead Inarkiev came with the intermediate check explanation, and seemed pleased that he "got lucky". Not good. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | siegbert: I played in a rapidplay a couple of months ago. I’m sure there a illegal move loses the game. |
|
Dec-30-17
 | | HeMateMe: The importance of beating Ernest. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | siegbert: It was two illegal moves lost the game! Not one! |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | zanzibar: <<siegbert:> I played in a rapidplay a couple of months ago. I’m sure there a illegal move loses the game.> If an arbiter sees it, or if the opponent notices it, stops the clock, and summons an arbiter. Otherwise, it gets complicated(*), and once again I refer you to the FIDE Arbiter's Manual. (*) E.g. illegal moves can stand as part of the game, no matter how many, or by whom, if neither player nor arbiter notices them. I'm pretty sure that's part of the rule (though I'm not an arbiter myself, and can't speak with full authority on the matter). |
|
Dec-30-17
 | | Jonathan Sarfati: The arbiter should be fired. 28. Kd3 is not even illegal? What law of chess was violated? He didn't notice Inarkiev's trickery, but that didn't make his move illegal. The position isn't even illegal, because it could have been reached by a series of illegal moves. But I have it on good authority that the Chief Arbiter ruled that they should play on from the position after 28.Kd3, as per the rules for blitz. http://www.chesschat.org/showthread... |
|
Dec-30-17
| | Jonathan Sarfati: The irony is that the 27... Ne3+ 28. Kd3 makes the position far more lost than before, because after either piece takes on b7, 29. Bxe8+ forces the exchange of the other Rs, and the N is en prise! |
|
Dec-30-17
| | Jonathan Sarfati: The rule is:
A.4.4
If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn. So playing from 27... Ne3+ 28. Kd3 is clearly the right decision from the chief arbiter. Inarkiev's game is resignable after this exchange, as noted. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | zanzibar: <JS> I agree that is probably the closest rule that applies. But an alert arbiter should have seen Inarkiev's illegal move on the board and applied rule A.4.2. Given that Carlsen took a few moments to consider where to move his king to get out of check that should have been possible - again, if the arbiter was watching the game. |
|
| Dec-30-17 | | dagwood2005: Have completely lost all respect for Inarkiev now. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 1 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
