Kasparov blitz challenge

[Mick Norris]

So what's the argument against?

A gentleman resigns...

Well for a start chess.com are trying to get away with pretending that the Polgar incident isn’t clear cut and there isn’t video footage of what happened.

"many say he released and retracted it from c5" is all they can bring themselves to say about Gazza’s knight in that one.


For yesterday, there’s a lot of humming and haaaing, a lot of blaming Nakamura for not claiming, a lot of pretending that Gazza might not have known what happened, a lot of pretending that he doesn’t have form for bending the truth of any situation to suit whatever his needs are.

For the most part there’s no coherent argument - at least it’s not been sent my way. It’s more just a reluctance to call a spade a spade. A preference for saying, it wasn’t a big deal and no harm was done.

We're not surprised though, I did flag this up before the event that the arbiters would need to keep an eye on 2 or 3 of the players who have form

It doesn't matter in a private blitz event, although it does bring chess into disrepute, but it does when we had J'adoubeamura in an event as important as the Candidates and no-one (as far as I know, and I have asked) is going to complain to the Ethics Commission, said body can't (or won't) investigate it themselves without a complaint

In the Nepo-Naka WC incident there was an arbiter watching the game who did nothing, and Nepo is still unhappy about that, but again nothing will be done

Kasparov got away with it against Polgar, and that's the precedent that lets others think (rightly) they can get away with it too

[MJMcCready]

So what's the argument against?

A gentleman resigns...

Well for a start chess.com are trying to get away with pretending that the Polgar incident isn’t clear cut and there isn’t video footage of what happened.

"many say he released and retracted it from c5" is all they can bring themselves to say about Gazza’s knight in that one.


For yesterday, there’s a lot of humming and haaaing, a lot of blaming Nakamura for not claiming, a lot of pretending that Gazza might not have known what happened, a lot of pretending that he doesn’t have form for bending the truth of any situation to suit whatever his needs are.

For the most part there’s no coherent argument - at least it’s not been sent my way. It’s more just a reluctance to call a spade a spade. A preference for saying, it wasn’t a big deal and no harm was done.

We're not surprised though, I did flag this up before the event that the arbiters would need to keep an eye on 2 or 3 of the players who have form

It doesn't matter in a private blitz event, although it does bring chess into disrepute, but it does when we had J'adoubeamura in an event as important as the Candidates and no-one (as far as I know, and I have asked) is going to complain to the Ethics Commission, said body can't (or won't) investigate it themselves without a complaint

In the Nepo-Naka WC incident there was an arbiter watching the game who did nothing, and Nepo is still unhappy about that, but again nothing will be done

Kasparov got away with it against Polgar, and that's the precedent that lets others think (rightly) they can get away with it too

Inclined to agree here, has to be zero tolerance. Doesn't matter who you are as others will copy.

[Chris Rice]

I got the impression through the repeated use of the phrase "hosted by Garry Kasparov" that this was a private blitz event. Given that there were no rating points at stake I guess a degree of latitude may have been given to a player who hasn't played competitively for years and was naturally a bit rusty. Of course if that was indeed the case you might argue what was the point of having an arbiter at all? This was such a high profile event the viewing public would have expected the rules to be observed and because they clearly weren't its going to set a bad example.

Regardless of that it was great seeing Kasparov playing again and I'm astonished he won so many games.

[Mick Norris]

I don't teach juniors, but Jonathan does and presumably can see the problem better than me

I don't think there has ever been an issue with players having talent, but their behaviour matters, and we have all played people who frankly shouldn't be allowed to do what they do (and probably had arbiters who are similarly substandard to put it politely)

[Kevin Thurlow]

Stronger players always get away with things (not just in chess). Remember Ivanchuk refusing a drug test and getting away with it, whilst a lower-rated player was banned. It is accordingly difficult to explain to one's juniors that subtly adjusting your queen from g8 to f8 to capture something on h6 is wrong, if they're aware of leading players taking moves back.

[Paolo Casaschi]

For yesterday, there’s a lot of humming and haaaing, a lot of blaming Nakamura for not claiming, a lot of pretending that Gazza might not have known what happened...

You might also wonder what the arbiter(s) saw and whether an arbiter could have intervened.

Nakamura clearly understood what happened and what he could have claimed, but he decided not to. If none of the players complain, why should anyone else? It's just a private matter between the two players.
The only odd thing about the whole story was Seirawan making up rules as if Kasparov could do no wrong... that was really odd.

[Ian Thompson]

Stronger players always get away with things (not just in chess).

Quite. Some years ago I played Nakamura in America and after the game the American arbiter apologised to me for Nakamura's behaviour during the game, saying that he had "an attitude". It did leave me wondering why the arbiter didn't intervene during the game.

[Jonathan Bryant]

This was such a high profile event the viewing public would have expected the rules to be observed and because they clearly weren't its going to set a bad example.

Regardless of that it was great seeing Kasparov playing again and I'm astonished he won so many games.

Indeed. I’m not sure why so many people can see - like you - that both things are true. Indeed, chess24’s attitude seems to be that Kasparov taking back a move wasn’t so important precisely because he was bringing excitement to everybody by playing at all. This strikes me as an entirely morally vacuous position.

Yes, Kasparov is an inspiration - as Jonathan Rowson tweeted. He’s also often a total bellend. I don’t see what it’s so difficult to adopt a world view that encompasses both of these points of view.



Mick is right, I do spend a lot of time teaching juniors. Beginners in pre-graded chess so they’re unlikely to have seen the Kasparov game. But I do spend a lot of time on touch-move, on why that’s important. On the 'how the game is played' not just how the pieces move.

It very definitely sets a bad example when the leading players adopt behaviour that would be considered extremely poor form - and are incredibly rare - at the local chess club. I find it rather depressing that so many people are prepared to go to such lengths to excuse (and often ignore completely) such behaviour.

The 'Nakamura didn’t complain so there’s really no problem' line of argument, by the way, I call the Azmai Gambit.



It’s true that the equivalent happens everywhere not just chess. The story of WG Grace putting the bails back on and telling the fielding team, "They’ve come to see me bat, not you bowl", comes to mind.

However, there is a particular issue with a deferential culture in chess, specifically with regard to folk with high elo ratings. This also applies when the wander into areas that have nothing whatsoever to do with knights and bishops.

[Paolo Casaschi]

The 'Nakamura didn’t complain so there’s really no problem' line of argument, by the way, I call the Azmai Gambit.

You can call it whatever you like, but what's wrong with that argument?

Even the counter-argument of setting the example for juniors, I see that as a flawed reply. There should be nothing wrong with two people having a relaxed approach to the game and avoiding arguments for the sake of argument and keeping on playing. "Relaxed" being the keyword here. Nakamura himself pointed out that the same happening in a serious event like the candidates would have resulted in a very different attitude and reply.

[Richard Bates]

For yesterday, there’s a lot of humming and haaaing, a lot of blaming Nakamura for not claiming, a lot of pretending that Gazza might not have known what happened...

You might also wonder what the arbiter(s) saw and whether an arbiter could have intervened.

Nakamura clearly understood what happened and what he could have claimed, but he decided not to. If none of the players complain, why should anyone else? It's just a private matter between the two players.
The only odd thing about the whole story was Seirawan making up rules as if Kasparov could do no wrong... that was really odd.

He wasn't making up rules though was he? He was just getting them wrong in trying to understand what happened. Blitz often used to be played as clock and move, and i'm sure most people play like that when playing on a friendly basis. In fact I think the last blitz event I played in (Kings Head memorial blitz earlier this year) was clock and move.

[JustinHorton]

the Polgar incident isn’t clear cut and there isn’t video footage of what happened.

My recollection is that the tournament was filmed and footage was available at the time to back Polgar's side of the story, but obviously the footage is not presently generally available. Does anybody know why? I think I read (relatively recently, too) that the company that owned it had never released it because their price had not been met, but I can't recall where I read it, let alone whether that's correct or who the company might be. I don't know if anybody else can shed light on any of this, or even knows where I read this.

Ah, probably on this very forum.

[MJMcCready]

It's a shame it finished so quickly, I was getting into it. What's the next big tournament, does anyone know?

[Mick Norris]

Gashimov Memorial starts 26 May - Caruana, Giri, Karjakin, Eljanov, Harikrishna, Mamedyarov, Radjabov

[Martin Crichton]

there sure are a lot of Kasparov haters here....3+ pages of bitch bitch bitchin about a living legend...

It was a privilage watching him in action again.....as Carauna said in the post tournament interview " he is of course much weaker than he was 15 years ago but he is still a very strong player (implying he is still a 2800 strength player!)

I couldn't agree more

[Brian Towers]

there sure are a lot of Kasparov haters here....3+ pages of bitch bitch bitchin about a living legend...

Well, yes and there again no.

I attracted a great deal of ire from the "haters love to hate" group earlier when I tried to suggest that Nakamura was a human being, a very naughty boy rather than some kind of devil. Obviously I would argue the same about Kasparov in this case.

But the basic problem lies with the arbiters. There is too much respect, too much reluctance to cause a fuss which might upset a "living legend".

The rules are very explicit. At least I think so. In both the Nakamura and Kasparov cases the arbiter should have intervened and enforced the laws of chess.

Here are the relevant extracts:

4.7 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move.
...
12.1 The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed
...
12.3 The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made, and impose penalties on players where appropriate.
...
12.6 The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess.

In all sports there are players who are ignorant of some of the rules. There are also players who know the rules very well but try and bend them or even quite blatantly break them. I don't think these people are intrinsically evil. I don't think we should hate a premier league football player who "goes down rather easily" in the box and nor do I think we should vilify Nakamura and Kasparov for getting away with breaking 4.7.

I do think we should blame the arbiters who should have been watching, paying attention and should have stepped in without being asked in the same way that we would blame a referee who gave a penalty when a great player fell down in the box with the nearest opposition player a couple of yards away.

In the Kasparov case he even said in the post competition interview that he looked up at the arbiter for some kind of sign before putting the knight on a different square and pressing the clock.