Batumi Olympiad

[JustinHorton]

There is some case to be made for admiring how Ju held it together to avoid moving her king to squares where Kosteniuk could have made a threefold repetition the following move.

Absolutely, and I'd say this, that while I think China had an awful lot of luck in the tournament, their players could quite properly retort that perhaps what really made the difference is that their players kept their heads when their opponents did not.

[J T Melsom]

I thought we had agreed elsewhere that the team throwing the best party wins - can we not use that in the case of tie-breaks?

[Ian Thompson]

I'm marginally surprised it isn't a feature of the DGT boards (or rather the software that transmits the moves to the world) that they flag up repetitions, thus enabling arbiters to give an instant decision.

I think it's easy to find out from the computer they're attached to.

I had a game some years ago where my opponent claimed a draw by repetition which I did not agree with. The arbiter played through the game and awarded the draw. I objected that she had failed to count to three correctly. After some further discussion, my opponent said that he would go and have a look at the computer and it would confirm the repetition. He did go and have a look. He came back and said the computer was not reporting a 3-fold repetition, so he accepted there hadn't been one.

[Chris Rice]

Which begs the question of what changed, what is going right and what can be done to continue this

Listening to the players take on proceedings could be revealing. Was there a true word spoken in Davids jest - has being freed from the presence of our greatest (and greatest outspoken) player increased team cohesion?

Someone thinks there might be some truth in what David said. Nigel:

"Great result for the England chess team! Fifth place was our best result for an eternity. Obviously they play better without me. Well done!"

[JustinHorton]

I'm marginally surprised it isn't a feature of the DGT boards (or rather the software that transmits the moves to the world) that they flag up repetitions, thus enabling arbiters to give an instant decision.

I think it's easy to find out from the computer they're attached to.

I'm guessing there might be some reservations relating to potential computer error?

[Chris Rice]

Well done guys!

[Nick Burrows]

Lovely photo

[Tim Harding]

Board 1
Rk. Name Rtg Team Rp Games Pts. % RtgAvg

1 GM Ju, Wenjun 2561 China 2661 9 7,0 77,8 2441
2 GM Hoang, Thanh Trang 2423 Hungary 2636 10 8,5 85,0 2340
3 GM Dzagnidze, Nana 2509 Georgia 1 2600 10 7,5 75,0 2401
4 GM Muzychuk, Anna 2555 Ukraine 2568 10 7,0 70,0 2417
5 IM Houska, Jovanka 2402 England 2556 9 7,5 83,3 2218

Impressive performance from Jovanka

Sue was 20th on board 5

Very impressive and well done Jovanka.
It should be said, though, that Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, who was sixth on the list, played every round.
She only dropped one draw (with Black) to a WIM from Moldova.
She had an amazing 10.5/11 for an Rp of 2549 and if the rest of the Scottish team had just done a bit better she would probably have still crushed a slightly stronger set of opponents and maybe even finished fourth on the list.
The board prize system unfairly favours players from the strongest teams.

[Tim Harding]

No, you get two goes, at least according to the commentary at the time

Yes that is what they said, but I see nothing to that effect in the FIDE Arbiters Manual. If the commentators were right, it may have been a special regulation for the Olympiad.
An incorrect claim is not an illegal move (otherwise two would lose) but some restriction on claims is perhaps desirable, in view of article 11.5 about distracting the opponent, which mentions "unreasonable claims" as well as unreasonable offers of a draw..."

[Tim Harding]

I'm marginally surprised it isn't a feature of the DGT boards (or rather the software that transmits the moves to the world) that they flag up repetitions, thus enabling arbiters to give an instant decision.

I think it's easy to find out from the computer they're attached to.

I'm guessing there might be some reservations relating to potential computer error?

Precisely. The rule is quite complex and would require careful programming of software to ensure there were no errors.
Hard-wiring such software into a board, even if it could be done, would be liable to obsolescence if the wording of the rule changed.

The main problem in the Kosteniuk-Ju game was (as I said in an earlier posting, agreeing with the commentators) was that the match arbiter
was totally flummoxed and indecisive.
She basically did not know how such a situation should be handled and proved herself incompetent to be in charge of such a critical match.

[Tim Harding]

I see what you mean about Kosteniuk's body language. There is some case to be made for admiring how Ju held it together to avoid moving her king to squares where Kosteniuk could have made a threefold repetition the following move. I think this happened twice. Can anyone say how many times the same position did actually get repeated twice and what those positions were? I am trying to do that, but struggling!

If Ju had put her king on f7 again instead of e7 then Kosteniuk would have had a valid claim.

[Roger de Coverly]

An incorrect claim is not an illegal move

The arbiter commission's house mag mentions a case in a First Saturday tournament where a player twice claimed incorrectly, possibly because of a language barrier. Later the player was mated. Subsequently a draw was awarded on the grounds that a position had been repeated five times.

http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories ... r_2018.pdf

IM Akshat Khamparia (IND) was playing IM Bo Li (CHN). After one of the moves by IM Li, he
stopped the clock, and said to the Chief Arbiter “repetition”. The Chief Arbiter immediately rejected this improperly attempted draw claim.
There are basically two ways to properly attempt draw claims. In general terms, these two ways are either BEFORE your move or AFTER your opponent’s move:
The Chief Arbiter attempted to explain the above articles to IM Li, but there seemed to be a language barrier. A few moves later, IM Li did the same thing, and again, the Chief Arbiter rejected this improperly attempted draw claim.
The game continued, and IM Khamparia eventually won by checkmate.

At this point, even if there had indeed been a threefold repetition during the game, as it was never properly claimed, the result would have remained 1-0.
However, after the game, IM Li and the Chief Arbiter were attempting to discuss the situation, but it was challenging due the language barrier. Regardless, IM Li eventually said “FIVE!” to the Chief Arbiter. Of course, that changes everything!
According to the relatively new Article 9.6.1:
It is critical to note that this case is NOT a question of whether checkmate is more IMPORTANT than fivefold repetition. The question is what happened FIRST. If fivefold repetition had occurred, then that ended the game at that moment!
There is no game after this point !
The Chief Arbiter checked, and there had indeed been fivefold repetition, at moves 60, 62, 68, 73 and 75. It can be challenging to catch fivefold repetitions!
The result was changed

[Roger de Coverly]

Precisely. The rule is quite complex and would require careful programming of software to ensure there were no errors.
Hard-wiring such software into a board, even if it could be done, would be liable to obsolescence if the wording of the rule changed.

You put the rule into the software that monitors the game and transmits it to the outside world. The only real complications are en passant and castling rights. Online servers had solved the problem from when they were first introduced, twenty five years ago or more.

If you thought you had repeated or hit fifty moves without a pawn move or capture, on ICC you just hit the draw button. It was automatic if the claim was valid. The programming on the servers was sensible but not always right. They would automatically award a draw when Knight + King v Knight + King was reached. OTB that isn't an automatic draw as running out of time would still lose the game.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think it's easy to find out from the computer they're attached to.

I'm guessing there might be some reservations relating to potential computer error?

Precisely. The rule is quite complex and would require careful programming of software to ensure there were no errors.
Hard-wiring such software into a board, even if it could be done, would be liable to obsolescence if the wording of the rule changed.

The new software does flag it up, apparently.

[Chris Rice]

Closing ceremony with a pictorial report of all the winners. Looks like they have created a few minor sections so more prizes can be handed out. Ding Liren making it on to the stage and off it again was the highlight of the evening.