World Cup Baku 10 September to 4 October 2015

[Chris Rice]

Controversy?

Pretty lame complaint from Nepo though u can understand why he'd be so upset after this incredible match. Naka commented later that if there are any more tournaments like the World Cup he'll be dead within 10 years. The KO formula may not be for the purists but the excitement it produces is fantastic. I've noticed players after they've finished their games immediately walking up and down the hall like caged animals even Adams who is normally so cool. Nothing like a time scramble to get the blood racing is there?

[LawrenceCooper]

Controversy?

Pretty lame complaint from Nepo though u can understand why he'd be so upset after this incredible match. Naka commented later that if there are any more tournaments like the World Cup he'll be dead within 10 years. The KO formula may not be for the purists but the excitement it produces is fantastic. I've noticed players after they've finished their games immediately walking up and down the hall like caged animals even Adams who is normally so cool. Nothing like a time scramble to get the blood racing is there?

The appeal correctly ruled that Nepo had to stop the clock and complain at the time. Mention was also made of another occasion where Naka touched a piece and moved another one but I suspect this was a j'adoube. http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/news/8/141

I suspect it would be very distracting because instead of thinking of your next move you are wasting valuable seconds thinking did he just castle illegally (touching the rook first), should I complain etc Nepo's appeal fee was returned to him which could be construed as having some sympathy with his complaint but being bound to rule against him.

[NickFaulks]

I suspect it would be very distracting because instead of thinking of your next move you are wasting valuable seconds thinking did he just castle illegally (touching the rook first)

This is an effective tactic with almost no downside. One day arbiters will have get around to doing something about it.

Mickey needs to be prepared in the next round.

[Simon Ansell]

Nepom just tweeted, quoting article 4 "If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4 he must always intervene immediately".

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

There were apparently four (!) arbiters watching the game, and I'm inclined to agree with Nigel.

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...

[David Sedgwick]

The appeal correctly ruled that Nepo had to stop the clock and complain at the time. Mention was also made of another occasion where Naka touched a piece and moved another one but I suspect this was a j'adoube. http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/news/8/141

I suspect it would be very distracting because instead of thinking of your next move you are wasting valuable seconds thinking did he just castle illegally (touching the rook first), should I complain etc Nepo's appeal fee was returned to him which could be construed as having some sympathy with his complaint but being bound to rule against him.

I've just watched the video of the castling incident several times.

At normal speed, it's certainly not apparent to me that Nakamura touched the rook first, but it is of course clear that he made the move using both hands.

That kind of situation is a nightmare for the arbiter. If you step in and award extra time to the opponent, you may be penalising the offender out of all proportion to the offence.

That is particularly true if the opponent shows no sign of having been disturbed. Notwithstanding Lawrence's comment, that seems to me to have been the case here. Nepomniachtchi replied immediately and castled also, in his case in the correct fashion.

Returning Nepomniachtchi's deposit seems correct to me, as Nakamura undoubtedly infringed the rules. I also feel that it was correct to warn Nakamura not to repeat the infraction in a later game, although that is not much help to Nepomniachtchi.

[Keith Arkell]

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...

''On the ECF website'', said the Red Queen defiantly to Alice, ''we often ignore tournament results.''

''Even the unimportant ones?'', murmured Alice.

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

[David Blower]

Its good to know that I can do something a grandmaster can't! When my opponent violated the touch move rule I told him immediately that he had to move the first piece he had touched!

[Roger de Coverly]

At normal speed, it's certainly not apparent to me that Nakamura touched the rook first, but it is of course clear that he made the move using both hands.

A bad example for club players certainly. It's not usually double handed castling that's the problem, rather playing the move with one hand and pressing the clock with the other. It's also players with a lifetime experience of playing who are often the infringers.

[David Sedgwick]

Nepom just tweeted, quoting article 4 "If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4 he must always intervene immediately".

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

There were apparently four (!) arbiters watching the game, and I'm inclined to agree with Nigel.

I hadn't seen your post when I made my earlier comments.

I'm inclined to disagree with Nigel, for the reason which I mentioned. So, it would appear, did the four watching arbiters.

The sentence which you and Nepomniachtchi quote is not part of the Laws. It is guidance, admittedly official, contained in the FIDE Arbiters' Manual.

I would ask those who are critical to watch the video, as I have done, and see whether you really feel that Nepomniachtchi has been unfairly treated.

[Simon Ansell]

''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

Having said that, I just moved to York, so do appreciate the results of the Jorvik Viking Congress

Back (sort of) on topic, I can't remember many better days for armchair sports viewing: amazing chess, tennis and rugby, and apparently there was also some F1 and a minor football match too (but I don't recall the result )...

[Ian Thompson]

That kind of situation is a nightmare for the arbiter. If you step in and award extra time to the opponent, you may be penalising the offender out of all proportion to the offence.

I'm curious to know whether USCF rules allow two-handed castling? To do it quickly requires practice, so I suspect Nakamura must have done it many times before.

I don't see any good reason why a penalty couldn't have been applied in this game. The infringement happened on move 5, so stopping the game while the clock was adjusted wouldn't have obviously benefited either player. What would have been wrong with giving Nepomniachtchi an extra 10, 20 or 30 seconds (as you see fit), or alternatively deducting a few seconds from Nakamura's remaining time?

[Simon Ansell]

Nepom just tweeted, quoting article 4 "If an arbiter observes a violation of Article 4 he must always intervene immediately".

Article 4: The act of moving the pieces

4.1 Each move must be made with one hand only.

There were apparently four (!) arbiters watching the game, and I'm inclined to agree with Nigel.

I hadn't seen your post when I made my earlier comments.

I'm inclined to disagree with Nigel, for the reason which I mentioned. So, it would appear, did the four watching arbiters.

The sentence which you and Nepomniachtchi quote is not part of the Laws. It is guidance, admittedly official, contained in the FIDE Arbiters' Manual.

I would ask those who are critical to watch the video, as I have done, and see whether you really feel that Nepomniachtchi has been unfairly treated.

What is the purpose of this 'official guidance' then? I don't see how it's a matter of judgement, because it's clear (as you state) that the move was made with both hands.

Having said that, I did indeed watch the game live and have seen the replay, and don't think that Nakamura gained any huge advantage from his actions.

[MJMcCready]

Controversy?

Pretty lame complaint from Nepo though u can understand why he'd be so upset after this incredible match. Naka commented later that if there are any more tournaments like the World Cup he'll be dead within 10 years. The KO formula may not be for the purists but the excitement it produces is fantastic. I've noticed players after they've finished their games immediately walking up and down the hall like caged animals even Adams who is normally so cool. Nothing like a time scramble to get the blood racing is there?

The appeal correctly ruled that Nepo had to stop the clock and complain at the time. Mention was also made of another occasion where Naka touched a piece and moved another one but I suspect this was a j'adoube. http://www.bakuworldcup2015.com/news/8/141

I suspect it would be very distracting because instead of thinking of your next move you are wasting valuable seconds thinking did he just castle illegally (touching the rook first), should I complain etc Nepo's appeal fee was returned to him which could be construed as having some sympathy with his complaint but being bound to rule against him.

Inclined to agree here, it should be up to the arbiters to make the call ideally, especially when the time limit is so short.

[Jesper Norgaard]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yye2YEPLYTQ

I agree with the Appeal's Committee that the change of the result of the game to a loss for Nakamura would be too drastic and in any event in breach with the 4.8 rule that specifies he can no longer complain after having made a move himself (Nepomniachtchi). If Nakamura had been penalised right away by a quick arbiter intervention after breaching 4.1, most likely a time penalty could and perhaps should have been enforced.

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.

In the current Armageddon game at 8:09 Nakamura captures a rook on h2, and inadvertently pushes the white king on h1 further off the board, but never corrects this misplacement. That would be a violation of 7.4 which also specifies that the arbiter may penalise it, possibly with a time adjustment just as the two previous violations. Collecting the 3 violations (4.1, 4.2 and 7.4) an arbiter could have either penalised all with a 1 minute addition per violation on Nepo's clock, or even subtracting 3 minutes from Nakamura's clock (practically deciding the game on time as he will never reach 60 moves with so little time). It could also be 30 seconds per infraction meaning 1.5 minutes off Nakamura's clock, or perhaps added to Nepo's. Of course it would also be within the laws just to apply warnings to all three violations (why do violations not have standardized penalties?).

Once again touching on the lack of specifying the penalties in the Laws of Chess, it seems Draconian that the violations could have been penalised with 3 minutes extra on Nepo's clock, to 3 minutes off Naka's clock, to 3 warnings without penalty. I think standardization of penalties would have been highly appreciated in this situation by Nepo - wouldn't all players feel that? From one extreme to another, this is like handing a fine to someone deserving the death penalty - or vice versa.

All in all this perhaps sheds some light on Nepo's bitter comments after the Armageddon game. He asks what good it is to have 4 arbiters watching the game, if none of them are willing to regulate it according to the rules. A valid point IMHO.

In comparison I don't think Nepo violated any rule, written or unwritten. Perhaps being cordial and polite, he used up too much time at the wrong moments instead of complaining.

[David Sedgwick]

I'm curious to know whether USCF rules allow two-handed castling? To do it quickly requires practice, so I suspect Nakamura must have done it many times before.

That is excellent thinking on your part. I've checked my 2003 edition of the USCF Rules. I can't find anything in them to require that moves must be made with one hand only.

I don't see any good reason why a penalty couldn't have been applied in this game. The infringement happened on move 5, so stopping the game while the clock was adjusted wouldn't have obviously benefited either player. What would have been wrong with giving Nepomniachtchi an extra 10, 20 or 30 seconds (as you see fit), or alternatively deducting a few seconds from Nakamura's remaining time?

In an Armageddon game the players will be concentrating intensely from the very start.

I can easily imagine a scenario where an arbiter intervenes and acts as you suggest and a player subsequently protests that his concentration was disturbed and that the arbiter should not have interrupted the game when the player had made no complaint.

What is the purpose of this 'official guidance' then?

The Laws are far from perfect, as many have stated on here, but they have been through a fairly rigorous process of scrutiny and approval.

The comments in the Arbiters' Manual are the work of two or three individuals. Many of them are useful, but I don't consider them to be binding on me.

I don't see how it's a matter of judgement, because it's clear (as you state) that the move was made with both hands.

I've explained my thinking in my response to Ian T.

Jesper makes some valid points indicating that it might have been appropriate for an arbiter to intervene later, even if not at the time of the castling incident.

It would be interesting to see what the Chief Arbiter has to say when he submits his report on the event, but I suspect that the report will not be published.