2018 Wijk aan Zee 12 - 28 January

[Matt Mackenzie]

Carlsen did his best to mess things up against Kramnik, I see

[NickFaulks]

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that ridiculous and unnecessary rule change.

Rules Commission has been charged with the heavy responsibilty of introducing life-giving confusion and controversy into a game that would otherwise have become hopelessly dull. You should be grateful for their efforts.

[Alex Holowczak]

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that ridiculous and unnecessary rule change.

Rules Commission has been charged with the heavy responsibilty of introducing life-giving confusion and controversy into a game that would otherwise have become hopelessly dull. You should be grateful for their efforts.

The rule was added, I understand, as an answer to the question "How can we know what a player's intentions were?" in the phrase "with the intention of moving or capturing". To me "intention" is perfectly clear, and there are plenty of other sports where the umpire or referee has to judge where the word "intention" or "intentionally" is used. Deliberate out of bounds in Australian Rules Football springs to mind immediately. The rule just doesn't need to exist.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Carlsen did his best to mess things up against Kramnik, I see

Oh I don’t know. He was never going to lose that endgame. Seems to me that after an 11 minute think for 29 Rc1 it’s much more plausible that he foresaw 33 g5 (and no doubt the idea of 38 g4 too) knowing that it would be a trivial (for pros) draw rather than he simply missed 29 ... Nxg4.

Not so much messing up but killing the game off as he knew he had no reason to play on.


I could have had that 2 v 0 doubled knight’s pawns rook ending against Speelman in a simul last month. I knew it was drawn but couldn’t remember the exact technique so decided not to go for it. Probably just as the well as one of the methods I thought would work (just sitting on the back rank) fails with two knights pawns rather than one. That said, I lost eventually anyway, of course.

[Nick Grey]

I can see the need to introduce VAR in the very top level tournaments.

I got in late from chess last night to be told that Chelsea won 1-0. But clearly not what actually happened on the night.

But we have a ref making intentional diving decisions, etc. And getting it wrong. This is why England will have no refs at the world cup finals. Once they were the best in the world.

Without being ageist or discriminating against arbiters - they tend to be on the old side, their eyesight may not be as good as it once was, and their reactions may be too slow as well. And have to consult the rules from time to time slowing up the game.

[Mick Norris]

Hou, Yifan - Karjakin, Sergey
Caruana, Fabiano - Matlakov, Maxim
Adhiban, B. - Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar
Wei, Yi - So, Wesley
Giri, Anish - Anand, Viswanathan
Kramnik, Vladimir - Jones, Gawain C B
Svidler, Peter - Carlsen, Magnus

Tough game for Gawain today

[Kevin Thurlow]

"And have to consult the rules from time to time slowing up the game."

In fairness, the Laws seem to change every 5 minutes, and I don't see a problem with consulting them if necessary. Sometimes, you can even convince the players you're right by showing them the published Laws.

[Alex Holowczak]

But we have a ref making intentional diving decisions, etc. And getting it wrong. This is why England will have no refs at the world cup finals. Once they were the best in the world.

You have to go all the way back in the mists of time to 2010 for the last time three Englishmen refereed the World Cup Final. It has been as long as 2015 since an Englishman refereed the Europa League Final.

Without being ageist or discriminating against arbiters - they tend to be on the old side, their eyesight may not be as good as it once was, and their reactions may be too slow as well. And have to consult the rules from time to time slowing up the game.

If you're right, whose fault is that? That arbiter (who is probably a volunteer), or the structures that train them such that there are no alternatives you perceive to be better?

[E Michael White]

Ah, yes. I'd forgotten that ridiculous and unnecessary rulechange.

The Laws for touch-move and j'adoube are confused on the first move. If you read the Laws carefully touch-move and j'adoube don't apply on White' first move but do on Black's. This arises because they only apply when a player "has the move" which is defined as :-

A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

Where is Black's previous move on White's first?

I personally think it would be preferable if neither touch-move nor the need to say j'adoube applied until both sides have made a move, if that's what GMs are doing now and want.

[Jonathan Rogers]

So, Kramnik v Jones then.

Will Gawain play the Kings Indian, against the man who scared off Kasparov from playing it?

[NickFaulks]

Will Gawain play the Kings Indian, against the man who scared off Kasparov from playing it?

You have to have faith in yourself, not in your opponent.

[Jonathan Rogers]

S'ppose

But can any of our diligent researchers say how many people have found the faith to try the KI against Kramnik (in standard games) this century?

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, if there any such ranks to join, Gawain has just done so.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Although it might turn out to be more of a Pirc, the way Kramnik has started.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Can't help thinking that 11...a5 is the sort of move I would have played. Hard to see that as a good omen.

I'll predict a Carlsen win today, btw.