FIDE's 400pt rule

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3989
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:47 pm

Kevin Thurlow >the problem there is that bookmakers and casinos have long had the attitude, "We will refuse to pay out if we feel like it." They make insurance companies seem like models of probity.<

In my personal experience they just barred me when frightened of me, such as when playing blackjack, although I wasn't really skilful enough to pose a serious threat
In the Phil Ivey matter, a serious charge can be laid against the particular casino. THEY WERE BREATHTAKINGLY NAIVE. A well-known professional poker player plays for very high stakes, a game supposedly of pure chance,in a casino. He insists on using a particular make of cards. He started winning big. It is quite normal to stop the game. The judge when Phil appealed was wrong. He said, 'Mr Ivey was cheating, although I accept completely he did not believe he was cheating.
Thus the song, 'The man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo'. That man tracked the imperfections in the roulette wheel. So they close down that wheel for the day. That is what 'breaking the bank' means.

I had a couple of friends who made good money on roulette, again tracking the imperfections in the wheel.

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Leonard Barden » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:35 pm

Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:54 pm
If in the light of all the latest available information, I was asked my opinion of what took place during that game in 2011, I would say that my opponent was aware that the brilliant and unusual 10 move combination beginning with 13 Nxf7! and ending with the quiet 22 Qg8!! was possible but it needed checking, and so he went away and checked it.
As Roger kindly linked earlier, I discussed the Sunningdale episode in my latest Guardian column https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... gdale-2011

That article has so far sparked 55 comments, many more than usual but most of them trivial. However, it was the 55th comment made this afternoon which grabbed my attention:

Arkell misses a win though
After 17....Kf7, 18.Qf4+ is in fact losing. Arkell missed the natural looking Nf6, which gives him the game.
So if Rausis was using a computer, why did he play Qf4+, which no engine would suggest?


The follow up question this naturally provokes is: did this double oversight actually occur, or did the game inputter at Sunningdale 2011 omit the moves 18 Qc4+ Kf6?

I don't know if Keith can answer that, or whether anyone else connected with the tournament can do so.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Nick Burrows » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:19 pm

It doesn't really change anything because I don't think anyone is suggesting that he consulted an engine after every move.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2900
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Richard Bates » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:22 pm

Leonard Barden wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:35 pm
Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:54 pm
If in the light of all the latest available information, I was asked my opinion of what took place during that game in 2011, I would say that my opponent was aware that the brilliant and unusual 10 move combination beginning with 13 Nxf7! and ending with the quiet 22 Qg8!! was possible but it needed checking, and so he went away and checked it.
As Roger kindly linked earlier, I discussed the Sunningdale episode in my latest Guardian column https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... gdale-2011

That article has so far sparked 55 comments, many more than usual but most of them trivial. However, it was the 55th comment made this afternoon which grabbed my attention:

Arkell misses a win though
After 17....Kf7, 18.Qf4+ is in fact losing. Arkell missed the natural looking Nf6, which gives him the game.
So if Rausis was using a computer, why did he play Qf4+, which no engine would suggest?


The follow up question this naturally provokes is: did this double oversight actually occur, or did the game inputter at Sunningdale 2011 omit the moves 18 Qc4+ Kf6?

I don't know if Keith can answer that, or whether anyone else connected with the tournament can do so.
The game given on page 7 of this thread has 17...Kf6

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Leonard Barden » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:36 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:22 pm

The game given on page 7 of this thread has 17...Kf6
Okay, the error is on the playthrough version on the Fide website, false alarm.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3461
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by David Sedgwick » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:02 pm

Leonard Barden wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:36 pm
Richard Bates wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:22 pm

The game given on page 7 of this thread has 17...Kf6
Okay, the error is on the playthrough version on the Fide website, false alarm.
Leonard, https://ratings.fide.com/pgn_chess_game ... Keith_C%22 also has 17...Kf6, so I am not sure what your source is.

I do wonder, however, whether the game might have gone 17. Qg4+, Kf7; 18. Qc4, Kf6; 19. Qf4+ as you suggested.
Last edited by David Sedgwick on Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Leonard Barden
Posts: 1474
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:21 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Leonard Barden » Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:42 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:02 pm
Leonard Barden wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:36 pm
Richard Bates wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:22 pm

The game given on page 7 of this thread has 17...Kf6
Okay, the error is on the playthrough version on the Fide website, false alarm.
Leonard, https://ratings.fide.com/pgn_chess_game ... Keith_C%22 also has 17...Kf6, so I am not sure what your source is.

I do wonder, however, whether the game might have gone 17. Qg4+, Kf7; 18. Qc4, Kf6; 18. Qf4+ as you suggested.
Not sure what happened, but the playthrough in my column is now also correct, so all's well with the moves.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:43 pm

Here's the correct version, copied and pasted from my own games collection:

[Event "e2e4 Int Masters B"]
[Site "Sunningdale ENG"]
[Date "2011.08.14"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Rausis, I..."]
[Black "Arkell, K..."]
[Result "1-0"]
[EventDate "2011.08.10"]

1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 g6
8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Bg7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ba3 Re8 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nxf7 (13. Ne4 a6
14. Bc4 Ne5 15. Bb3 b5 16. Qe2 Bg4 17. f3 Bf5 18. d4 Nc6) 13... Kxf7 14. Bc4+ e6
15. Rxe6 Rxe6 16. Bxe6+ Kxe6 17. Qg4+ Kf6 18. Qf4+ Ke6 19. Qd6+ Kf7 20. Qd5+ Kf6
21. Re1 Bf8 22. Qg8 Kg5 23. h4+ Kh5 24. Qd5+ g5 25. Qf7+ Kxh4 26. g3+ Kg4
27. Re4+ Kh3 28. Qh5# 1-0

Paradoxically, in light of all information received I am slightly less suspicious today than I was during the game, even though at that time there was no finger pointed at him.

Nick Burrows
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Nick Burrows » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:28 pm

Considering you didn't play all of the engines 1st choices, it seems implausible to me that he could have memorised the whole game. Maybe he could remember up to 20.Qd5+ Kf6. Could he play the engines 1st choice moves for the rest of the game? Possibly, but I would say most likely not.

Mick Norris
Posts: 7488
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester
Contact:

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Mick Norris » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:06 pm

Keith Arkell wrote:
Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:43 pm
Here's the correct version, copied and pasted from my own games collection:

[Event "e2e4 Int Masters B"]
[Site "Sunningdale ENG"]
[Date "2011.08.14"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Rausis, I..."]
[Black "Arkell, K..."]
[Result "1-0"]
[EventDate "2011.08.10"]

1. e4 c6 2. c4 d5 3. cxd5 cxd5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. Nc3 Nxd5 6. Nf3 Nxc3 7. bxc3 g6
8. Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Bg7 10. Re1 O-O 11. Ba3 Re8 12. Ng5 h6 13. Nxf7 (13. Ne4 a6
14. Bc4 Ne5 15. Bb3 b5 16. Qe2 Bg4 17. f3 Bf5 18. d4 Nc6) 13... Kxf7 14. Bc4+ e6
15. Rxe6 Rxe6 16. Bxe6+ Kxe6 17. Qg4+ Kf6 18. Qf4+ Ke6 19. Qd6+ Kf7 20. Qd5+ Kf6
21. Re1 Bf8 22. Qg8 Kg5 23. h4+ Kh5 24. Qd5+ g5 25. Qf7+ Kxh4 26. g3+ Kg4
27. Re4+ Kh3 28. Qh5# 1-0

Paradoxically, in light of all information received I am slightly less suspicious today than I was during the game, even though at that time there was no finger pointed at him.
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

Keith Arkell
Posts: 697
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: FIDE's 400pt rule

Post by Keith Arkell » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:18 pm

It seems to me that we've pretty much flogged this one to death, but as I've been away from the forum for a while I'll just respond to a few comments.

To Angus: I think that normally you and me are on the same page, but just to clarify a couple of matters, my enquiring whether Nick is a 'slippery lawyer' should be taken with the same pinch of salt as his comment about my pinching easy rating points at Paignton.
And please accept my apologies if my reference to Shipman in order to make a point of logic upset your sensitivities. Curiously 'Hitler' has been invoked 121 times on the forum, but I guess a greater passage of time makes such references less emotive.

I hoped I might be able to search my facebook private conversations for comments to friends made soon after Sunningdale 2011, following my initial suspicions, but there is no longer a tool for searching key phrases and it would take me weeks to scroll back. Therefore I have no easy way to prove that my suspicions ( and note I say 'suspicions' and not full blooded accusations) originated back then. But the fact remains that they did.

My memory for detail is not not very good, and hence I've simply made generalised comments of the nature that 'something didn't feel right'. My opponent's moves have never been a reason for such a level of suspicion. It would have been more a case of stuff like time spent away from the board and body language while executing the moves.

Rather than bothering to say more I'll just add that my perceptions and opinions are fairly well aligned to the posts of Richard Bates and Matt Bridgeman.

I have no interest in pursuing this any further. I prefer the actual playing of the game, so will just await to see whether Igors Rausis himself eventually has more to say...

Post Reply