Kasparov blitz challenge

[Carl Hibbard]

The Kasparov knight back is well just cheating to be honest! Look to the heavens laugh about it and resign

Which one? This one or the Polgar one?


If you meant the one against Nakamura, there have been quite a few people on twitter today determined to tell me that it wasn’t/there’s no story.

Both.

[Jonathan Bryant]

The Kasparov knight back is well just cheating to be honest! Look to the heavens laugh about it and resign

Which one? This one or the Polgar one?


If you meant the one against Nakamura, there have been quite a few people on twitter today determined to tell me that it wasn’t/there’s no story.

Both.

Well there are those that disagree with you.

What’s most interesting to me - way more interesting that the fact that Kasparov has now twice taken back a move that he didn’t like - is that while opinions like yours are easy to find on forums like this, on twitter, on blogs and what have you, they are rarely if ever to be seen in news reports.

[Carl Hibbard]

So what's the argument against?

A gentleman resigns...

[Jonathan Bryant]

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.

[Carl Hibbard]

I would have to say tosh to most of that. Home watching now...

[Jonathan Bryant]

I would have to say tosh to most of that.

That is pretty much my position. But equally, I"m not at all convinced that chess journalism is any worse now than it was in the past. Hence my belief that there are probably loads of these incidents in the past that people didn’t want to write about so we don’t know about them.

[Carl Hibbard]

A nice Nakamura and Kasparov game then round 5.

[LawrenceCooper]

With three rounds to go Nakamura leads with 9.5/15. So has 8, Kasparov 7 and Caruana 5.5.

[LawrenceCooper]

Last round starts in just under 5 minutes, Nakamura leads on 10.5/17, So 9.5, Kasparov 8.5, Caruana 5.5. Kasparov has just beaten Nakamura.

[LawrenceCooper]

Final scores: Nakamura 11, So 10, Kasparov 9.5, Caruana 5.5.

[Angus French]

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.

[Jonathan Bryant]

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.

I was wondering exactly that. Does an arbiter (a) have the power to intervene, (b) have the duty to intervene or (c) neither of the above?


Kind of relevant as Kasparov’s defence was in part based on the "well the arbiter didn’t say anything" theme.

[Roger de Coverly]

I was wondering exactly that. Does an arbiter (a) have the power to intervene, (b) have the duty to intervene or (c) neither of the above?

It wasn't either USCF or FIDE rated, so the rules are whatever the organisers wanted them to be. That said, as an event that attracted probably a larger audience than the Candidates, it would be right to have a well defined set of rules.

[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.

[MJMcCready]

It's surprising how few top players do know the rules. I guess they are reliant on an arbiter intervening but no harm done in learning what is correct by yourself.