|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-09-08 | | actinia: http://www.uschess.org/tournaments/... educate yourself. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | actinia: (it's rule number 1) |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: I'll pass that on to Tom Braunlich and the USCF if and when I ever talk to them (you might do it yourself if you're in a hurry). But since you apparently didn't read the link, I'll make it easier for you by quoting the relevant section in full: <(3) Making a Move — Is it illegal to move before the opponent punches the clock? Apparently not.One thing that is clear to me from this controversy is how "unclear" the rules for making moves are. This has been a subject of much of the internet discussion following this event — was what Anna did on several moves actually illegal? From what I understand, the USCF rulebook doesn't address the question directly of moving before your opponent punches the clock. I think that the fact that this close final playoff game was videotaped has brought the issue to the forefront. When things like this happen in blitz tournaments it all occurs so quickly that it can hardly be appreciated.
The difficulty arises due to some ambiguity in the rules themselves, which define a move as not being made (or "completed") until the clock is pressed. You can’t make a move before the opponent completes his move (by pressing the clock). But does that mean you can’t start your move until then, or just that you can’t make (or complete) your move until then? Here is some evidence from two highly respected directors who say that you can begin your move before the opponent presses the clock: (1) FIDE Rules — This all was very recently addressed by the well-known International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen in his article on chesscafe.com this month: (See http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geur... — question two.)
As you can see, Mr. Gijssen interprets the rules (the FIDE rules, see USCF comments below) to mean that what Anna was doing was not illegal. You must allow the opponent to punch the clock before you complete your move, but you can begin your move (i.e. start moving the piece) before the opponent completes their move by pressing the clock.
This is not what many people believed the rule to be, including me. Many think you cannot start your move until the opponent has hit the clock. But when you think about it, such a rule would be very hard to enforce and there are many occasions in time trouble when this is inevitably what is done, due to the extremely fluid and fast nature of such play. As Gijssen says, "Can you imagine how many quarrels we would have in Blitz and Rapid games?" Is it really even possible to determine if a player has touched a piece before the opponent punched the clock? We are talking about small fractions of a second here during a time scramble. It is all happening so quickly, it seems impractical to require the player to not start his/her move until the opponent’s clock is punched. Is a player who “jumps the gun” by a tenth of a second really making illegal moves? You offer a queen trade, the opponent takes it; and immediately you follow with your automatic recapture before the opponent hits the clock, hitting your clock as quickly after them as you can. This is simply a very common thing.
Gijssen's interpretation of the rule makes the punching of the clock the determining factor, something that is far more easily observable and verifiable.> |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: <(2) USCF Rules — Mike Atkins, one of America's most experienced tournament directors, supported this same interpretation with regard to USCF rules in his posting on the CLO forum after he viewed the video: "I have directed hundreds of blitz tournaments over the past 15 years and helped write the new USCF Blitz rules that are a modification of the old WBCA rules. After watching the video several times, there was nothing illegal except for the piece being knocked over and not replaced. … I clearly saw Anna making moves while Irina was moving and you can see Irina doing the same thing. This is not illegal. Both players were moving extremely fast. Top blitz players have to do this to survive. If they wait politely until the opponent has moved and punched their clock before moving, they will lose every time. Anyone ever see Hikaru [Nakamura] or Jorge Sammour-Hasbun play blitz? I've seen MUCH MUCH worse at major tournaments, with players moving so fast I couldn't keep up with them - I wish EVERY blitz game had a video as it clears up all arguments. The rules concerning the clock are: 6.) Except for pressing the clock, neither player should touch the clock except: 6a.) To straighten it.
6b.) If a player knocks over the clock a penalty may be assessed. 6c.) If your opponent’s clock does not tick you may press his side down and re-press your side; however, if this procedure is unsatisfactory, please call for a director. 6d.) Each player must always be allowed to press the clock after their move is made. 6e.) A player should not keep a hand on or hover over the clock. 6D and 6E were at question here. Despite moving very fast, I did not see either player violate 6D and both players were following Rule 4 - Both players were using the same hand to move and hit the clock. It’s really difficult to hover over the clock with one hand and move with the same hand at the same time, I didn't see that happening either. …" Others in the forums have argued against this interpretation, and I will let them determine what is correct here. It seems to me that at least it needs some clarification. I’m not a tournament director, but if the above interpretation is correct, my humble suggestion for a clear way to explain the technicalities of a move would be something like this: You begin your move by touching a piece. You are now committed to moving that piece somewhere, if it can be done legally (the “touch-move rule”). You are committed to a move by releasing the piece on a new square. The move cannot then be changed, even if you have not yet pressed the clock. The move is completed when you press your clock (thus starting the opponent’s clock). You cannot complete your move (i.e., press the clock) before the opponent has completed his, nor can you interfere with his move or his ability to press the clock.> Your Rule 1 doesn't say what you want it to. It says you have to make your moves in the 5 minutes on your clock, and as we all know, she only expended 4:59. In short then, it's clearly dishonest of you to state as a fact that Zatonskih definitely broke the rules when the TD who has a videotape of the whole thing says she didn't. What you mean is that she broke the rules you WISH existed, not the ones that actually do. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | psmith: <actinia>: I believe "time delay features" refers to features of chess clocks, not to things done with the timing of moving pieces and clock-punching. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | psmith: <actinia> <Petrosianic>: Oh. I see. The claim is that "make all his moves in the five minutes alloted on the clock" means that you must *make your moves* using only the *time on your clock* -- which would be violated here. And that makes sense to me. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | psmith: Point being: if you make your moves using the time on the opponent's clock, you haven't made your moves using only the time on your clock. Correct, actinia? |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: <Point being: if you make your moves using the time on the opponent's clock, you haven't made your moves using only the time on your clock. Correct, actinia?> Except that the rule doesn't contain the word "only". If it did, he might have a case. <And that makes sense to me.> It would seem to make sense, except the TD doesn't agree, and USCF isn't overruling him. The TD says that the rules aren't clear enough to specifically prohibit what happened. If that's the case, we can't punish Anna for rules that SHOULD exist, only for rules that actually do exist. And the rule we want doesn't seem to exist here. I'm a bit shocked myself to see how vaguely written the rules are. I assumed that they would clearly prohibit this behavior. But they don't. No wonder people do it then. I can't believe this hasn't been an issue before now. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | arthurp: I find it incredible that Anna has not responded to the comments,such as,
she cheated according to Irina.In this case her silence is not helping her! |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | wolfmaster: <Petrosianic> Wow! actinia got you! |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Riverbeast: <In this case her silence is not helping her!> Is she supposed to respond to every opponent who cries after losing a game? |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | dx9293: Zatonskih doesn't need to reply to anything. She's the champ. Let Irina take it out on her next year if she can. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | centercounter: How is she supposed to respond if she does not agree with Irina's interpretation? Basically, it amounts to an accusation of cheating - and in the verbiage Irina chose, intentional cheating. In any case, she had the responsibility to stop the clock and summon a director. Even immediately after the game is finished is too late. That having been said, blitz chess and Armageddon games are poor deciders for titles based on classical play. I am not so sure that I see a need to use an irrelevant method to select one winner rather than having shared titles. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | minasina: <BishopBerkeley>, have your links already vanished: Anna Zatonskih , or is there something wrong with the URLs? |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | minasina: Btw, should we continue Krush-Zatonskih US Championship 2008 conversation here: US Women's Championship (2008) , where it has already started earlier? |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | minasina: ...or rather on the Irina Krush page. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | actinia: Zatonskih is the shameless cheat. I wanted her page to reflect that. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: Yeah, but it DOESN'T reflect that, since you've already been proven wrong, straight from the horse's... er, USCF's mouth (it's hard to tell them apart sometimes): http://main.uschess.org/content/vie...
All that her page reflects is that anonmous cranks on the internet have bizarre grudges against her, which probably won't cost her too much sleep, quite honestly. No offense. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | actinia: <Petrosianic>
it's already been settled. you lose. get over it. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: <it's already been settled. you lose. get over it.> Irina has been named co-champion, then? I must have missed that on the USCF website. Got a link? |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Petrosianic: <actinia> <it's already been settled. you lose. get over it.> I just checked the USCF website. You were wrong, they haven't overturned anything. But actually, we were both wrong. We both thought this behavior was illegal, and were both mistaken. The only difference is that I was big enough to admit it once Braunlich quoted the rules. You weren't. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | Riverbeast: Anna Zatonskih is cuter - therefore she is the deserving winner. The chief arbiter has spoken |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | diabloprancer: The real tragedy here is that the Women's World Champion was decided by an Armageddon game. It is UCSF's fault, not the players', that they were moving at the same time and knocking over pieces, etc. It's clear from the video that neither player was trying to cheat; it's just the nature of this ridiculous time control that ridiculous things happen. In the future they should just keep playing blitz games until someone loses. Any player would prefer 20 blitz games to this nonsense. |
|
| Jun-09-08 | | diabloprancer: <Riverbeast> Not sure that cuteness is the deciding factor in this debate, although I concur with your cuteness assessment. |
|
Jun-09-08
 | | WannaBe: Okay, it's time for <WannaBe>'s dumb question(s) time... 1. Why was the concept of Armageddon ever invented?
2. By whom?
3. Why was it adopted?
4. Why is accepted to be used as a deciding game in a (major) tournament? 5. Why did the participant(s) agreed to it? |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 6 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
