Bilbao Masters

[Tim Harding]

Madness tonight in the Ding Liren-Giri ending. Does anyone know what happened?

Giri was trying to win R+B v R at the end but the live boards died after move 119, after showing some crazy blunders that cannot have actually happened.
Before that Giri had a probably forced win that he messed up, then 2R+B v 2R+P. Eventually he won the pawn and had an earlier chance to play R+B v R. Instead he kept rooks on, trying to mate, but didn't manage it.

The game may have continued to about 150 moves. An arbiter was keeping score so presumably we'll find out eventually.

Maybe we'll find out on Friday when the next round is played. It's a rest day tomorrow

[David Sedgwick]

Madness tonight in the Ding Liren-Giri ending. Does anyone know what happened?

Giri was trying to win R+B v R at the end but the live boards died after move 119, after showing some crazy blunders that cannot have actually happened.
Before that Giri had a probably forced win that he messed up, then 2R+B v 2R+P. Eventually he won the pawn and had an earlier chance to play R+B v R. Instead he kept rooks on, trying to mate, but didn't manage it.

The game may have continued to about 150 moves. An arbiter was keeping score so presumably we'll find out eventually.

Maybe we'll find out on Friday when the next round is played. It's a rest day tomorrow

The last pawn was captured on move 66, so Ding Liren could have claimed a draw at move 116.

My guess is that a draw was claimed or agreed at or shortly before that point and the later "moves" were caused by some kind of post mortem analysis.

As you say, we'll probably find out in a day or two.

[Michael Yeo]

The game score now shows a draw after 172 moves.
Giri looks to have missed a few wins earlier when it was RRB v RR.
I think they are on 10 second increments and not keeping score, so claiming a 50 move rule draw is problematic.

I was in the audience in Bilbao on Monday. So v Ding was an exciting game unlike Anand v Giri. Playing conditions were reminiscent of Wijk an Zee with the Ibero-American tournament taking place right next to the main 2 boards.

[David Sedgwick]

The last pawn was captured on move 66, so Ding Liren could have claimed a draw at move 116.

My guess is that a draw was claimed or agreed at or shortly before that point and the later "moves" were caused by some kind of post mortem analysis.

As you say, we'll probably find out in a day or two.

Wrong as usual, Sedgwick!

The live games sites now show Giri forcing the exchange of a pair of rooks at move 115 and the game continuing until move 172 (why not move 165) before finally being drawn.

Edit: Not merely wrong, but beaten to the correction by my old mentor Michael Yeo.

[JustinHorton]

The live games sites now show Giri forcing the exchange of a pair of rooks at move 115 and the game continuing until move 172 (why not move 165)

Yes, why not?

[Michael Yeo]

Yes, why not?

I have checked my earlier post and they are indeed on 10 second increments from move 41 (when 60 minutes get added). This may also explain why I saw an arbiter replacing the clock in Round 1 after move 40 presumably to change the setting.

They therefore won't be recording moves when down to under 5 minutes. My knowledge of the latest laws is deficient, but there is presumably some penalty, such as adding time for the opponent, for making an incorrect claim. Hence a claim being made after 57 moves instead.

[E Michael White]

Yes, why not?

I have checked my earlier post and they are indeed on 10 second increments from move 41 (when 60 minutes get added). This may also explain why I saw an arbiter replacing the clock in Round 1 after move 40 presumably to change the setting.
They therefore won't be recording moves when down to under 5 minutes. My knowledge of the latest laws is deficient, but there is presumably some penalty, such as adding time for the opponent, for making an incorrect claim. Hence a claim being made after 57 moves instead.

That's probably right. Even though the arbiter was keeping the score the arbiter cannot intervene after 50 moves and has to wait until 75 moves from the last pawn move/capture and without any further piece capture. The arbiter cannot inform the players how many moves have been made prior to that, to help a player make a 50 move claim. A sensible player would make a few more moves to be certain and avoid the penalty. If the player has no idea how many moves have been played they could play on until the move before mate and then claim !

[JustinHorton]

I may be having a stupid moment, but if the players aren't recording moves, how on earth are they supposed to know when fifty moves are up, or even make any sort of guess?

[Roger de Coverly]

I may be having a stupid moment, but if the players aren't recording moves, how on earth are they supposed to know when fifty moves are up, or even make any sort of guess?

You might wonder if they are ticking them off which may be feasible at 10 seconds, even when writing them isn't. The arbiters should know, as the board will be recording moves and if programmed to do so, the clock will be counting them.

If increments become established for evening league and short session weekend Congress play, they are likely to be of 5,10 or 15 seconds. How to claim 50 move draws becomes a problem looking for a solution. Without increments, Appendix G (10.2 as was) can be invoked.

It's legal for a demonstration display or clock to display what it believes to be the move count. The Laws of Chess merely state that it's not direct evidence for the player to make a claim or belief, usually in the context of loss on time, or even not a loss on time. That particular Law dates back as far as the "Intelligent Chess System" as I think it was called, which was a customised set of boards and displays developed by David Levy and Kevin O'Connell available for hire before the development of the mass produced DGT boards. When these were used at tournaments such as Hastings to replace hand operated demo boards, the players could see the move count displayed at the bottom of the screen. DGT were misinformed about the legality of displaying the move count and to this day there's a design fault that there is no mechanism to permanently display the clock's opinion of this. It might be wrong, but if you know what it is, the players or arbiter can correct it before it becomes critical.

[Mick Norris]

The So win from the first round is worth a look
chess.com report
chess24 report

[JustinHorton]

I may be having a stupid moment, but if the players aren't recording moves, how on earth are they supposed to know when fifty moves are up, or even make any sort of guess?

You might wonder if they are ticking them off which may be feasible at 10 seconds, even when writing them isn't.

Most unlikely if the position doesn't come onto the board until past move 100, surely?

[JustinHorton]

Well this is looking a bit one-sided.

[LawrenceCooper]

Anand looks in trouble against Giri in round 4.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Did you guys post that before or after the queen sacrifice that has just been offered? (Well, it is practically forced.)

[LawrenceCooper]

Did you guys post that before or after the queen sacrifice that has just been offered? (Well, it is practically forced.)

After he allowed Qb1, if not the decisive mistake, Be6 seemed to invite trouble.