2nd Millionaire Open 8 to 12 October 2015

[Ian Thompson]

So they were taking a bit of a risk but not too much.

That depends what you make of these rules (https://millionairechess.com/tournament-policies):

NO EARLY DRAW RULE
The No Early Draw Rule implemented in the Open section of the Millionaire Chess Open is based on a simple concept: fans wish to see real chess games. We, the organizers, believe that the true spirit of chess competition is well served when this principle is adhered to. Anything else makes a travesty of our wonderful game, and completely disrespects the viewing public. With those considerations in mind, we require that players sign off on the following rules in order to play in this event. Our promise is that these dictums will be applied in a fair and consistent manner, with the stamp of the leadership of Millionaire Chess as well as the many decades of experience of our tournament directing staff.
The organizers understand that there are situations that occur in which a draw has to be agreed to before move 30. These situations are rare but they do occur, and if we determine that a serious effort was made in playing the game, we do have the authority to allow a draw. We will not be forcing a player to walk into checkmate or lose a pawn to avoid a draw. However understand that these situations are very rare, and should not occur often.
The penalties for breaking the following rules may be:
Forfeiture of game
Offending player will be ineligible to win a prize
Players may be banned from playing in future events

THE RULES
No game in the Open Section of the Millionaire Chess Open may be agreed drawn by the two players prior to Black having completed his/her 30th move.
If there is a situation where the two players believe that a draw must be agreed to, then only the player who wishes to accept the draw may stop clocks and request the assistance of the tournament director. The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.
Having an “objectively” drawn or equal position does NOT allow you to agree to a draw. If this is the case, then you must play until at least move 30.

Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.

How could either player be considered to have made a serious effort to play the game?

[Roger de Coverly]

From that link I see that the losers in the tiebreak get to compete tomorrow for some lesser prizes.

The tournament continues for all but the top four, so as to be a nine round tournament for Norm purposes.

In the lower sections, where Norms are not an issue, I think everyone not in the top four gets to go home.

Just as a thought, FIDE are getting increasingly militant about not allowing non-standard pairing systems to count for Norms. What should they think of a pairing scheme that artificially removes four leading players for the last two rounds?

[Roger de Coverly]

How could either player be considered to have made a serious effort to play the game?

Presumably we would have heard by now if any attempt was being made to apply any of the listed sanctions. I doubt they would exclude or sanction one of the USA's star players, but it's going to make it difficult for them to enforce the "no draw without trying" rule against anyone else.

[Jonathan Bryant]

All 9 moves were indeed riveting -not!

It wasn't the best advert for such an event,

I don’t know, I thought it was pretty funny. If only to stick something up Maurice Ashley’s idiotic twattery of suggesting the French Exchange should be banned.

Of course, now we’re getting Outraged Twattery instead, yet somehow I’m still pretty amused that two of his top guys effectively told him to swivel.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course, now we’re getting Outraged Twattery instead, yet somehow I’m still pretty amused that two of his top guys effectively told him to swivel.

He wrote the rules, he needs the backbone to apply them. FIDE already support him with the rule that allows tournaments to ban draws before x moves. Admittedly this was a "valid" repetition claim. The whole concept of a seven round Swiss to determine four qualifiers for a knock out is a bit dodgy in the first place.

I've heard players suggest that they will quite happily fight for sporting reasons, but only if it doesn't deprive the loser of a pay day. So from that point of view, don't have a monster first prize and a derisory second.

[NickFaulks]

What should they think of a pairing scheme that artificially removes four leading players for the last two rounds?

This was pre-approved. Players who reach the final four do not have a norm opportunity, although of course that was always unlikely to be an issue. For the others there is no problem.

[Roger de Coverly]

For the others there is no problem.

In such a tournament, it is impossible for Norm seekers to play any of the top four after round 7 in the final two rounds. If FIDE are taking a moral high ground over fiddled pairings, is this not a case in point? Particularly if the removed top four are determined by a tie break competition outside the Swiss Pairings.

[Tim Harding]

For an hour or so it looked like no play-off but Bareev missed his chances (especially 20 Qf3!) and now it's looking as if there will be TEN players competing for one place alongside the three who are already qualified: Le Quang Liem, Yu Yangyi and Lenderman.

Bareev and Shankland just reached move 40 and it looks like a draw

[NickFaulks]

The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.

This is of course a complete nonsense, and always has been. Is the TD supposed to propose an alternate move and force the player to make it?

In the Dresden 2008 Olympiad it was commonplace for the players to repeat moves a dozen times in order to reach move 30, precisely to avoid this uncertainty. Under the new Laws, even this is impossible because the arbiter steps in after five repetitions and declares the game over. Then what?

[NickFaulks]

For the others there is no problem.

In such a tournament, it is impossible for Norm seekers to play any of the top four after round 7 in the final two rounds. If FIDE are taking a moral high ground over fiddled pairings, is this not a case in point? Particularly if the removed top four are determined by a tie break competition outside the Swiss Pairings.

If four players choose to withdraw from the main event in order to transfer to a different one, there is no obvious abuse. If the plan were not declared in advance, then perhaps there would be.

[Ian Thompson]

The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.

I wrote no such thing.

[Roger de Coverly]

Under the new Laws, even this is impossible because the arbiter steps in after five repetitions and declares the game over. Then what?

It's arguably an organiser issue. If, perhaps unlike the Las Vegas tournament, the players are offered an incentive to enter, there exists the power to withhold the incentive if play falls below standard, if the standard is defined as not playing any number of well known drawing methods.

From the top of my head there's the Najdorf Be3 Ng4 draw as seen today, there's the Zaitsev draw with Ng5 Re8. There's that draw in the Riga Spanish that the Russian sisters usually play. There's the draw in the .. c5 line of the Austrian Attack in the Pirc originally discovered by Seirawan (?).

[NickFaulks]

The TD will then objectively decide whether or not it is appropriate to agree to a draw or whether the players must play on until move 30.

I wrote no such thing.

Sorry, I meant no offence. This was a quote from a quote you quoted. I'm not sure how to make that clear.

edit : I now get it, it appeared that I was accusing you of taliking nonsense. I was not.

[LawrenceCooper]

The nine player two group play-off is underway. Luke is on 1.5/3 after a win against Caruana but a loss against Kaidanov is likely to see him eliminated.

[LawrenceCooper]

The nine player two group play-off is underway. Luke is on 1.5/3 after a win against Caruana but a loss against Kaidanov is likely to see him eliminated.

2/4 after a 96 move draw v So where he was a pawn up but unable to win.