World Cup Baku 10 September to 4 October 2015

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.
Giri-Wojtaszek also drawn, albeit they got past move 30.
MVL-So drawn just after the time control.
Mamedyarov has beaten Caruana with a decisive kingside attack after an opening that didn't look too promising.
Jakovenko has become the first player to take anything off Eljanov in a fairly uneventful draw.
Ding won after a fluctuating battle.
Nakamura has now won against Adams. A Catalan where black seemed absolutely fine but was outplayed, got short of time, dropped a pawn and white converted without any problem.

Svidler is a pawn up against Topalov with good chances to win.

[benedgell]

''Of course, child'' retorted the Red Queen. ''No tournament is too insignificant to be ignored''.

I realise that I'm flogging a dead horse, but honestly there's f**k all point spending any money at all on getting chess recognised as a sport or complaining about lack of sponsorship and so on if all that's being reported by our governing body is us telling each other to f**k off, or failing that, the full text of emails concerning possible insurance savings, when there's nothing on one of our finest ever players involved in the latter stages of the most exciting tournament of the year :S

Simon

The ECF continues to have a vacancy for a publicity officer, I think it has been vacant since Ben Edgell did it

I guess the webmaster is not responsible for writing content

I imagine that if a suitable article was sent to the webmaster, he would put it on the website

Notwithstanding that, you are correct, and maybe the Commercial Director would be better concentrating on this rather than attacking Alex

Commercial Officers

Publicity Manager
Mark Jordan

[LawrenceCooper]

Commercial Officers

Publicity Manager
Mark Jordan

All we need now is a way to contact him

[Leonard Barden]

Chess writers do their job, and for an event like the World Cup an ECF publicity officer offers no extra.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/s ... -world-cup

To be objective, Adams reaching the last 16 and then (as seems likely) being eliminated by the No2 seed is no big deal as a mainstream news story. It would be different entirely if he progressed to the semi-finals.

[LawrenceCooper]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.
Giri-Wojtaszek also drawn, albeit they got past move 30.
MVL-So drawn just after the time control.
Mamedyarov has beaten Caruana with a decisive kingside attack after an opening that didn't look too promising.
Jakovenko has become the first player to take anything off Eljanov in a fairly uneventful draw.
Ding won after a fluctuating battle.
Nakamura has now won against Adams. A Catalan where black seemed absolutely fine but was outplayed, got short of time, dropped a pawn and white converted without any problem.

Svidler is a pawn up against Topalov with good chances to win.

Svidler has now won.

[benedgell]

Chess writers do their job, and for an event like the World Cup an ECF publicity officer offers no extra.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/s ... -world-cup

To be objective, Adams reaching the last 16 and then (as seems likely) being eliminated by the No2 seed is no big deal as a mainstream news story. It would be different entirely if he progressed to the semi-finals.

With respect, a Publicity Officer would have at least addressed Simon's point earlier:

Another thing: why is there nothing on the ECF website regarding Mickey's performance? A casual visitor just sees numerous posts about a tedious argument between two board members, that could be argued creates an even worse impression than various "toxic" forums...

[Simon Ansell]

Chess writers do their job, and for an event like the World Cup an ECF publicity officer offers no extra.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/s ... -world-cup

To be objective, Adams reaching the last 16 and then (as seems likely) being eliminated by the No2 seed is no big deal as a mainstream news story. It would be different entirely if he progressed to the semi-finals.

With respect, a Publicity Officer would have at least addressed Simon's point earlier:

Another thing: why is there nothing on the ECF website regarding Mickey's performance? A casual visitor just sees numerous posts about a tedious argument between two board members, that could be argued creates an even worse impression than various "toxic" forums...

Further, there has been at least one mainstream (non-chess) media story in the British press, so Mickey is surely worthy of at least a mention on his federation's website, which is my point.

Edit: In fact just now, I've quickly checked the websites of the French, US, Russian, Dutch, Polish, Bulgarian and Azerbaijan chess federations (couldn't find China) and all of them have stories relating to their remaining player(s) on the front page. So if anyone's wondering where the ECF is going wrong with it's web/media strategy, they could start here.

Forgot Ukraine.

[Jesper Norgaard]

This was in fact not the only violation of rules that Nakamura committed in this Armageddon game. The castling with both hands takes place at 0:43 in the video, but at 0:47 he in fact pushes his king slightly forward without saying "j'adoube" or "I adjust", and subsequently makes another move than a king move. While I agree that this violation is perhaps not enough to demand that he must move the king (Kh8) it certainly is a violation of rule 4.2 since his intention was not declared before adjusting the king. It does show the problem about castling with both hands, often the two pieces will not land correctly on their squares.

I have seen Naka in another tiebreak game adjusting a rook that his opponent had just placed slightly uncentered on the square, also without using "I adjust" as specified in rule 4.2. In this case instead of "correcting" the problem himself, he could have claimed 7.4 misplacing of pieces. Luckily for Naka he could not capture the rook (for instance with a queen) as this would have been the result if he had touched it as he did and the capture would have been possible.

Your interpretation and conclusions are wrong, Jesper. You have overlooked 4.3 -

4.3  Except as provided  in Article 4.2,  if  the player having  the move  touches on  the chessboard, with the intention of moving or capturing: 
a.  one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that 
can be moved, or 
b.  one  or  more  of  his  opponent’s  pieces,  he  must  capture  the  first  piece 
touched that can be captured, or 
c.  one piece of each colour, he must capture  the opponent’s piece with his 
piece or,  if  this  is  illegal, move or capture  the  first piece  touched which can be 
moved  or  captured.  If  it  is  unclear  whether  the  player’s  own  piece  or  his 
opponent’s was touched first, the player’s own piece shall be considered to have 
been touched before his opponent’s. 

If there is no intention then there is no obligation.
Note that this is not just my interpretation. Geurt Gijssen came to this conclusion in his "Arbiter's Notebook" column in 2011 - https://web.archive.org/web/20120510222 ... urt160.pdf .

Do any of the more senior arbiters have an alternative view / reinterpretation of Gijssen's comments?

I also agree with Geurt Gijssen's interpretation, and that if there is no intention, there is no obligation. Nakamura clearly pushed his king as gently as possible with the tip of his finger, with the intention of adjusting it on the square. So he cannot be obligated to comply with 4.3. Your argument above seems to suggest that the choice is between 4.2 and 4.3, but this is not true.

Nakamura did not have an obligation via 4.3, but he did have an obligation via 4.2 which says "Provided that he first expresses his intention (for example by saying “j’adoube” or “I adjust”), only the player having the move may adjust one or more pieces on their squares." In other words, he was not allowed in 4.2 to touch the piece without expressing his intention to adjust it. This is irrespective if he touched it with the intention to move it, or not (as in this case). As a side example, if he was not on move he also could not adjust the king even if he said explicitly "I adjust" and did not touch the king with the intention to move it. It's a little tricky, but the general idea is that he is only allowed to touch the piece if all criteria of 4.2 apply. QED.

I believe his action of adjusting the king without saying "I adjust" was worthy of a warning, and perhaps a time penalty not larger than 1 minute.

You will perhaps note from this verdict http://bakuworldcup2015.com/news/8/141 that the committee specifies "and also when his opponent touched one piece but moved another piece during the game in violation to article 4 of FIDE Laws of chess." Exactly in violation of 4.2, not 4.3. I hope I expressed myself clearly now

[David Shepherd]

I think most players just accept their opponent making an adjustment of the pieces without saying I adjust (if it is clear what they are doing). If both players are happy with this I see no reason for the arbiter or anyone else to interrupt the game. If at the time one player objects then the arbiter would have no choice but to impose a reasonable penalty as one player has made a vey minor violation of the rules. It is surprising that the arbiters handbook seems to say the arbiter must intervene in these circumstances http://en.chessbase.com/post/nepomniach ... armageddon

Regarding the method of castling, this seemed to be a violation of rule 4.1 and based on the above it seems the arbiter should have intervened, but they did not. The question then arises what happens when the arbiter acts incorrectly?

It would have been interesting if the opponent had objected after the clock had been pressed. What is the status of this move then, clearly it is not a legal move as more than one hand was used (4.1)? If not a legal move is it an illegal move with the associated consequences?

If it was an illegal move witnessed by the arbiter should they have defaulted the player?

[John McKenna]

... Edit: In fact just now, I've quickly checked the websites of the French, US, Russian, Dutch, Polish, Bulgarian and Azerbaijan chess federations (couldn't find China) and all of them have stories relating to their remaining player(s) on the front page. So if anyone's wondering where the ECF is going wrong with it's web/media strategy, they could start here.

Forgot Ukraine.

The Chinese Chess Association is a FIDE federation and its website is at -

http://chess.sport.org.cn/

(It's all in Chinese characters.)

Near the top of a list of links is the following -

http://games.sports.cn/chessorg/domesti ... 54655.html

It contains a group photo of their 10 participants in the FIDE World Cup 2015.
It also includes the 1st round pairings of their 6 seeded and 4 unseeded players.

No further news seems to have been added since the above on 11th of Sept.

[John Philpott]

Lawrence Cooper wrote

benedgell wrote:

Commercial Officers

Publicity Manager
Mark Jordan


All we need now is a way to contact him

Mark's appointment was confirmed towards the end of the 7 hour Board meeting on Friday, by which time the ECF Office was closed for the weekend. When it reopens on Monday, the matter of an official e-mail address for the Publicity Manager can be dealt with.

[Jesper Norgaard]

I think most players just accept their opponent making an adjustment of the pieces without saying I adjust (if it is clear what they are doing).

Why? The "I adjust" statement ensures the player is only adjusting, not moving a piece. Thus if he doesn't say "I adjust" he is not adjusting and can potentially be liable for all penalties and implications of touching a piece on the board. The "I adjust" makes it unnecessary to interpret whether the touching of the piece was made with intention to move it, which is always a difficult call to make.

If both players are happy with this I see no reason for the arbiter or anyone else to interrupt the game.

Yes because the arbiter is forced to make a ruling if he sees a violation of the rules, as per 12.1 "The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed." Frankly I believe everybody is better off with strictly enforcing the rules, and everybody trying to avoid doing something illegal.

If at the time one player objects then the arbiter would have no choice but to impose a reasonable penalty as one player has made a very minor violation of the rules.

Exactly that is potentially when the calamities really starts, and atrocities happen.

It is surprising that the arbiters handbook seems to say the arbiter must intervene in these circumstances http://en.chessbase.com/post/nepomniach ... armageddon

No it is not because if follows the lemma of the 12.1 rule above.

Regarding the method of castling, this seemed to be a violation of rule 4.1 and based on the above it seems the arbiter should have intervened, but they did not. The question then arises what happens when the arbiter acts incorrectly?

1. The arbiter apologizes and retracts his ruling and tries to reestablish the times and the position as best as possible, and the game continues. 2. If the arbiter insists he is right, the player may appeal to the Appeal's Committee.

It would have been interesting if the opponent had objected after the clock had been pressed. What is the status of this move then, clearly it is not a legal move as more than one hand was used (4.1)?

It is an illegal action with a legal move, violating article 4.

If not a legal move is it an illegal move with the associated consequences?

No it is an illegal action with a legal move, violating article 4. An illegal move violates articles 3.1 to 3.9 as defined in 3.10(b)

If it was an illegal move witnessed by the arbiter should they have defaulted the player?

Yes but it was not an illegal move.

[David Sedgwick]

I feel that I’ve had my say on the Nepomniachtchi - Nakumura incident, but I would nevertheless like to reply to some of the comments which have been directed at me.

I don't really understand David's answer to Simon above. I appreciate that there's such a thing as non-binding guidance, but I don't as yet see what, in the rules or the guidance, was stopping the arbiters from intervening.

I never suggested that the arbiters were precluded from intervening. I sought to explain why they might have considered it inappropriate to do so.
Moreover, I only said that I was inclined to disagree with those who were criticising the arbiters.

If you look here

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/7752/369/

and download the list of changes to the USCF rules between 2003 and 2014, you will see (page 4) that unless I mistake myself, castling is explicitly with one hand only.

Thank you. I didn’t have time to search for that before I made my own post.

However, the change is clearly of recent origin and does tend to bear out Ian Thompson’s suggestion that Nakamura had perfected his castling technique when it was legal in the US.

Two handed moves are against the Laws of Chess and constitute an attempt to cheat.

No they don't, not most of the time anyway. They’re perpetrated by players who have got into bad habits which they find hard to break.

The same is true of players who press the clock with their second hand, or who write down their moves before they make them.

These actions are not comparable with taking moves back or using a computer during the game.

David, how do you square your view with Article 12.1?

“The arbiter shall see that the Laws of Chess are strictly observed.”

I always have regard to the philosophy set out in the Preface:

“The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.”

Article 12.1 can at times be applied by a warning after the game.


I have wondered whether my approach might be a peculiarly British one. However, none of the four arbiters in question is British, although Sainbayar Tserendorj lives in England.

I said at outset that this kind of situation is a nightmare for the arbiter. Arbiters’ lives would certainly be easier if FIDE were to adopt the approach commended by Jesper, with specified penalties for each and every infraction which arbiters had to enforce rigorously without exception.

However, I’m sure that in that event it wouldn’t be very long before players and players’ organisations would be protesting vigorously that all arbiters had become needlessly obtrusive and overbearing.

[David Sedgwick]

Greetings to Thabang Moyo of Zimbabwe, who passed the examination with distinction at the FIDE Arbiters' Seminar which I recently conducted in Botswana.

He has been reading this thread and has mailed me with a question about it.

I'm sure that Carl will be pleased to learn the extent of this Forum's reach.

[Mick Norris]

Andreikin-Karjakin was drawn in 12 moves.

They are already up to move 17 today