Southend

[Christopher Kreuzer]

For those not on twitter:

Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920.

Ah, for the love of increment...

Wonder if it was a draw claim declined (and disputed) or accepted (and disputed)? Are the results online and what was the result of that final game? I guess we may hear more about the conduct of the players as well as that of the arbiter, but hopefully it won't get too acrimonious. It would be nice if the ECF was able to help settle matters like this, as it can't be nice for said arbiter to have one of the country's top GMs saying things like this on Twitter (even if justified). It can't be easy for said GMs either, especially when this is money that pays the bills. And to be fair, forumites commenting on the matter is unlikely to help!

[IM Jack Rudd]

For those not on twitter:

Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920.

Ah, for the love of increment...

Wonder if it was a draw claim declined (and disputed) or accepted (and disputed)? Are the results online and what was the result of that final game? I guess we may hear more about the conduct of the players as well as that of the arbiter, but hopefully it won't get too acrimonious. It would be nice if the ECF was able to help settle matters like this, as it can't be nice for said arbiter to have one of the country's top GMs saying things like this on Twitter (even if justified). It can't be easy for said GMs either, especially when this is money that pays the bills. And to be fair, commentary on the matter here is unlikely to help!

The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.

Oh, that explains a lot. Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev or is this the first time they've played? Surely not. Presumably Jones is disputing the award of a draw and was "making progress". Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.

[Sean Hewitt]

Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.

With this sort of position, I'd say that the game score is vital in drawing an accurate conclusion.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev ...?

Does there have to be?

[Matthew Turner]

Gawain's latest update

"Will update the website about it tomorrow. Basically the arbiter didn't know the 10.2 rule which cost me £920"

So, I guess we'll find out (Gawain's side of the story) tomorrow

[Adam Raoof]

The game was Jones v Cherniaev, it was a draw, and the material balance was R+N for Jones versus R+P for Cherniaev. That's as much as I've gleaned from various conversations on Facebook.

Blimey

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is there history between Jones and Cherniaev ...?

Does there have to be?

No, but I get the impression some GMs are more likely to have a history. I also got the impression they hadn't met before. Which reminds me, I never saw any updates on that tournament in Dublin. Yeah, bit of a random topic change, I know!

[Jonathan Bryant]

No, but I get the impression some GMs are more likely to have a history.

True enough, although some GMs don't seem to need a history with any given person for it to kick off.

(which is to say nothing about the rights and wrongs of the arbiter's decision in this particular case)

[Roger de Coverly]

Presumably Jones is disputing the award of a draw and was "making progress". Probably best to wait for the game score if that is ever published.

Given enough time, are there any "normal" positions where R + N is winning against R + P?
With 6 piece endings available on the Shredder website and others, an objective answer is possible.


If you rank "can the position be won" above " is progress being made" , the award of a draw is logical.

[Howard Grist]

I wasn't present at this event, but the score sheets have landed on my desk. They don't help much. Both players gave up scoring around move 75. The arbiter's incomplete notes allow me to extend this to move 88, but the material remaining then is still R+B+N v R+N+2P.
[Event "Southend Open"] [Date "2013.04.01"] [Round "7"] [White "Jones, Gawain"] [Black "Cherniaev, Alexander"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [PlyCount "175"] [EventDate "2013.03.29"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Bf5 4. f3 e5 5. d5 e4 6. Qd4 exf3 7. gxf3 c5 8. Qe3+ Be7 9. Bd2 a6 10. O-O-O b5 11. Qf2 b4 12. Nb1 Qa5 13. e4 Bc8 14. a3 Qa4 15. axb4 Nbd7 16. Ne2 Rb8 17. Nec3 Qxb4 18. Bf4 O-O 19. Qc2 Ne8 20. Bd2 Bf6 21. f4 Bd4 22. Na4 Qb7 23. Bc3 Be3+ {(=)} 24. Bd2 Bd4 25. Bh3 Nb6 26. Bxc8 Qxc8 27. Nxb6 Rxb6 28. Bc3 Be3+ 29. Bd2 Bd4 30. Nc3 f5 31. Rhe1 fxe4 32. Rxe4 Qh3 33. Na4 Rb7 34. Bc3 Nf6 35. Re6 Be3+ 36. Kb1 Bxf4 37. Rg1 Nh5 38. Rg2 Qf5 39. Rge2 {(=)} Qxc2+ 40. Kxc2 g5 41. h3 Ng3 42. Rf2 Nf5 43. Kd3 h6 44. Rfe2 Kh7 45. Re1 Nh4 46. b4 cxb4 47. Re7+ Rf7 48. Rxf7+ Rxf7 49. Bxb4 Rb7 50. Bc3 Nf3 51. Re6 Rf7 {(=)} 52. c5 dxc5 53. d6 Bxd6 54. Rxd6 Ng1 55. Nxc5 Nxh3 56. Bd4 Nf2+ 57. Ke2 Ng4 58. Rxa6 Rf4 59. Ne6 Rf7 60. Kd3 Nf2+ 61. Ke3 Ng4+ 62. Ke4 Nf2+ 63. Kd5 Ng4 64. Bc5 Nf6+ 65. Kd4 Kg6 66. Bd6 Kf5 67. Nc5 h5 68. Nd3 Ng4 69. Ra8 h4 70. Nc5 Nf6 71. Ra5 Kg6 72. Ne6 Nh7 73. Ke4 Nf6+ 74. Ke3 Nh7 75. Be5 Re7 76. Nd4 Nf6 77. Kf3 Nd7 78. Ra6+ Kh5 79. Bd6 Rf7+ 80. Kg2 Rf6 81. Ne2 Rf5 82. Nc3 Rf6 83. Nd5 Re6 84. Nc7 Re3 85. Ra5 Nf6 86. Bf4 h3+ 87. Kh1 Re1+ 88. Kh2 1/2-1/2

[Richard James]

[Event "Cap d'Agde Karpov KO"] [Site "Cap d'Agde"] [Date "2012.11.03"] [Round "2.1"] [White "Ivanchuk, Vassily"] [Black "Karpov, Anatoly"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A11"] [WhiteElo "2771"] [BlackElo "2616"] [PlyCount "140"] [EventDate "2012.11.02"] [EventType "k.o. (rapid)"] [EventRounds "2"] [EventCountry "FRA"] [Source "ChessBase"] [SourceDate "2012.11.22"] 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 4. c4 g6 5. b3 Bg7 6. Bb2 O-O 7. O-O Bg4 8. d3 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Nbd7 10. Qc2 Re8 11. e3 e6 12. Nd2 h5 13. Rac1 Ng4 14. d4 Nh6 15. b4 Nf6 16. a4 a6 17. b5 axb5 18. axb5 Nf5 19. Ra1 Qe7 20. Qb3 Bf8 21. Bc3 Nd6 22. Bb4 Qd7 23. b6 Rxa1 24. Rxa1 Nxc4 25. Nxc4 dxc4 26. Qxc4 Bxb4 27. Qxb4 e5 28. dxe5 Rxe5 29. Ra8+ Re8 30. Ra7 Kg7 31. Qc3 Re6 32. h4 Kh7 33. Ra4 Qd8 34. Rf4 Kg8 35. Qb2 c5 36. Qa1 Rxb6 37. Qe5 Qd6 38. Qxd6 Rxd6 39. Bxb7 Ng4 40. Bc8 Ne5 41. Re4 Nf3+ 42. Kg2 Nd2 43. Re7 c4 44. Rc7 Kf8 45. Bb7 Ke8 46. e4 Kd8 47. Rc5 Rd4 48. Bd5 Ke7 49. Rc7+ Kd6 50. Rxf7 Nxe4 51. Bxc4 Rxc4 52. Rg7 Rc2 53. Rxg6+ Ke5 54. g4 Rxf2+ 55. Kg1 Rf4 56. gxh5 Rxh4 57. h6 Nf6 58. Kg2 Kf5 59. Rg3 Rxh6 60. Ra3 Ne4 61. Ra8 Kf4 62. Rf8+ Ke3 63. Re8 Rg6+ 64. Kh3 Kf3 65. Kh2 Rg2+ 66. Kh3 Ng5+ 67. Kh4 Nf7 68. Kh5 Rg5+ 69. Kh4 Rg6 70. Rh8 Nxh8 0-1

Just the most recent of many examples involving strong players I found on Big Database 2013.

Sounds to me (as an unqualified arbiter) that it should have been given a win.

A couple of years ago, at a Richmond Rapidplay, a player in a lower section was awarded a win on time under 10.2 with Rook and Bishop against Rook. His opponent protested and said that he'd never play in Richmond Rapidplays again. It probably didn't help his cause that the arbiter who made the decision had once been married to Keith Arkell.

[Roger de Coverly]

The arbiter's incomplete notes allow me to extend this to move 88, but the material remaining then is still R+B+N v R+N+2P.

The final recorded position is a complete mess, so you might expect an arbiter to ask for play to continue. With a lack of any obvious case as to who was winning, a win might be expected to be awarded to the player whose flag didn't fall. But later if the position clarified to a 6 man ending, a draw could reasonably be awarded if the position is actually drawn. But that in turn relies on the arbiter ranking "able to win" above "trying to win".

[Jonathan Bryant]

I'm rather surprised Alex H hasn't commented on this as yet. Is he being held somewhere against his will and/or being forced to play an adjournment perhaps?

Anyhoo, my limited understanding of such matters is that - viz Roger/Chris's comments - the objective evaluation of the position isn't especially important in such decisions. Hence the KRB v KR decision at Richmond cited above.

[Alex Holowczak]

I'm rather surprised Alex H hasn't commented on this as yet. Is he being held somewhere against his will and/or being forced to play an adjournment perhaps?

He's alive and well, but is maintaining a diplomatic silence in case this lands in his inbox in his official capacity. It would be wrong of me to comment on this without knowing all of the facts first, and without reference to the Chief Arbiter.