PDA

View Full Version : Did Geurt actually answer the question?



Garvinator
20-05-2010, 09:00 PM
This comes from Geurt Gijssen's latest Arbiters Notebook column on www.chesscafe.com


According to the current rule, Laws of Chess Article 4.6

The move is called legal when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled.

Article 3.7.e states:

When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour.

Suppose a player places a new queen on the eighth rank, but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank. The move is illegal, because it violates Article 3.7 e. Then, after adding two minutes to the opponent, the player promoting the pawn changes his mind and places a knight by the correct procedure. Is this allowed or does he have to keep the queen, as the queen has already touched the promoting square? Thanks and regards,


Formally, you are correct that the player didn't follow the prescribed procedure. However, the way he carried out the promotion of the pawn is generally accepted in the chess world. I can even add that electronic boards were changed to accept the "wrong" procedure of promoting a pawn.

Can someone show me where Geurt actually answered the question asked about knight promotion after illegal move penalty?

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2010, 07:00 AM
This comes from Geurt Gijssen's latest Arbiters Notebook column on www.chesscafe.com

Can someone show me where Geurt actually answered the question asked about knight promotion after illegal move penalty?
I don't believe he did. But article 4.4 seems to answer that:

If a player having the move:

...

d.
promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
So I would disallow a the change to a N. There is also a common-sense principle that no one should gain and advantage by an illegal procedure.

Garvinator
23-05-2010, 10:33 AM
I don't believe he did. But article 4.4 seems to answer that:

If a player having the move:

...

d.
promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised, when the piece has touched the square of promotion.
So I would disallow a the change to a N. There is also a common-sense principle that no one should gain and advantage by an illegal procedure.
I am not so sure about this and have done quite a bit of thinking about it.

As you show, the piece is only finalised once it touches the square of promotion, but in this case, there was no ACTUAL promotion as the pawn is still on e7. I know this is a technical argument and promoting the pawn with placing the promoted piece on the 8th rank and then removing the pawn is common place, but in this case the player has failed to complete the pawn promotion sequence by removing the pawn, so they have completed an illegal move.

Therefore, as the piece is not finalised until it is on the 8th rank, and so in this case is not a 'piece in play', I think the player can change the piece they wish to promote after promoting the pawn legally.

Vlad
23-05-2010, 02:25 PM
Geurt Gijssen said that the original procedure was not illegal. That means the arbiter in charge made a mistake by punishing the person who promoted a piece without pushing it to the 8-th. Consequently, the whole situation should not have happened if the arbiter was applying correct rules.

During Australian Open in Manly I observed the following situation, which had similarities with the above. Mos Ali was playing with some visitor rated about 2250-2300. The opponent had only a few minutes left, so Mos was trying to play quickly. Suddenly they got a position where Mos could mate in one, but the move was not obvious. Mos wanted to make some other obvious move quickly. The opponent told him that he should record the moves first. So Mos got another 15-20 seconds to think about the position.

And... That did not help, he still made an obvious move 20 seconds later.:) Imagine if he found the mate in this 20 seconds, the opponent would have to blame himself.:)

Garvinator
23-05-2010, 02:36 PM
Geurt Gijssen said that the original procedure was not illegal. What Geurt said was:


Formally, you are correct that the player didn't follow the prescribed procedure.(my bolding). However, the way he carried out the promotion of the pawn is generally accepted in the chess world. I can even add that electronic boards were changed to accept the "wrong" procedure of promoting a pawn.
Had the player removed the pawn from the 7th rank, there would be no issue, from generally accepted procedures. But he did not remove the pawn and pressed his clock, hence the illegal move.


7.4 a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. It seems extremely clear to me that if you do not remove the pawn from the 7th rank after promoting the pawn on the 8th rank and have pressed your clock, then the move is completed and you have not followed the correct procedure. So you have completed an illegal move.

road runner
23-05-2010, 02:40 PM
I am not so sure about this and have done quite a bit of thinking about it.

As you show, the piece is only finalised once it touches the square of promotion, but in this case, there was no ACTUAL promotion as the pawn is still on e7. I know this is a technical argument and promoting the pawn with placing the promoted piece on the 8th rank and then removing the pawn is common place, but in this case the player has failed to complete the pawn promotion sequence by removing the pawn, so they have completed an illegal move.

Therefore, as the piece is not finalised until it is on the 8th rank, and so in this case is not a 'piece in play', I think the player can change the piece they wish to promote after promoting the pawn legally.How is a piece sitting on the 8th rank not on the 8th rank? This is all getting a bit too zen for me.

Garvinator
23-05-2010, 02:51 PM
How is a piece sitting on the 8th rank not on the 8th rank? This is all getting a bit too zen for me.Ok, by the laws of chess the correct procedure is:

1) Push pawn to 8th rank
2) Exchange the pawn for a piece of the same colour.

It is generally accepted, even though technically against the laws, to allow players to put the piece on the 8th rank FIRST and then remove the pawn from the 7th rank.

As the player has not removed the pawn from the 7th rank, then they have not promoted the pawn correctly and as per the laws of chess, they have committed an illegal move.

The whole issue is that the player did not remove the pawn from the 7th rank.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2010, 04:39 PM
What Geurt said was:


Had the player removed the pawn from the 7th rank, there would be no issue, from generally accepted procedures. But he did not remove the pawn and pressed his clock, hence the illegal move.You seem to be missing the point of the question and assuming things that were not said.
It isnt stated that he did not remove the pawn from the board.
All that is claimed is that he never moved the pawn from the 7th rank to the 8th rank.

Jesper Norgaard
23-05-2010, 05:10 PM
As the player has not removed the pawn from the 7th rank, then they have not promoted the pawn correctly and as per the laws of chess, they have committed an illegal move.

The whole issue is that the player did not remove the pawn from the 7th rank.

I agree entirely with all of this. In rapid and normal games the illegal move still stands in the sense of the promotion, so the piece on e8 is maintained and can't be changed (for instance white can't change his mind and put a knight instead of the current queen), but the e7 pawn most be removed, and the white player penalized with 3 minutes extra time to the opponent (black).

A twist to this is that if it is a blitz game and black makes a quick move here without noticing the white pawn on e7 and white queen on e8, like 1...Kh7 then white can play 2.Qe8-f7+ and in next move 3.e7-e8=Q to get yet another queen. It all goes to show the multiple problems there are in blitz that by making a legal move you legalize the opponents last illegal move, in effect creating all kinds of crazy scenarios. Black's only defence against that is to claim the illegal move 1.e7-e8=Q when pawn is still on e7 and white pressed the clock.

All of these scenarios are null and void in the Internet blitz games so they represent a world of difference compared to OTB blitz games. In the Internet blitz games these differences are apparent:
(1) no illegal moves are possible (not allowed by the interface)
(2) touch rule is not enforced
(3) 50 move draw, dead position(?), 3-times repetition of position and insufficient material draw are all enforced, as well as checkmate and stalemate
(4) no incorrect start positions can occur
(5) en passant and castling rights are correctly validated and is not allowed on the board if not allowed by FIDE laws
(6) mouse slip unfortunately can enforce a legal but stupid move, that was never the players intention - that move stands as in contrast to an OTB blitz game

I think OTB blitz should be made similar to rapid and normal games so that if an illegal move appears, you can wind back to that position. Perhaps you could make the only difference (to rapid/normal) that the illegal move is penalized with 1 minute subtracted from the offenders clock (so that no rounds are delayed in a blitz tourney) and 3 illegal moves in a game loses the game (as in rapid/normal, so not really a rule change as such).

Jesper Norgaard
23-05-2010, 05:20 PM
Suppose a player places a new queen on the eighth rank, but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank. The move is illegal, because it violates Article 3.7 e. Then, after adding two minutes to the opponent, the player promoting the pawn changes his mind and places a knight by the correct procedure. Is this allowed or does he have to keep the queen, as the queen has already touched the promoting square? Thanks and regards,


You seem to be missing the point of the question and assuming things that were not said.
It isn't stated that he did not remove the pawn from the board.
All that is claimed is that he never moved the pawn from the 7th rank to the 8th rank.
As you will see from the above quote "but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank", I assume it stayed on e7. Indeed this is what Geurt is talking about, but I agree with Jono, never answers directly. In fact it is not yet an illegal move until he actually presses the clock - but 1.e7-e8=N is not possible if there is already a white queen touched to e8.

road runner
23-05-2010, 05:26 PM
Ok, by the laws of chess the correct procedure is:

1) Push pawn to 8th rank
2) Exchange the pawn for a piece of the same colour.

It is generally accepted, even though technically against the laws, to allow players to put the piece on the 8th rank FIRST and then remove the pawn from the 7th rank.

As the player has not removed the pawn from the 7th rank, then they have not promoted the pawn correctly and as per the laws of chess, they have committed an illegal move.

The whole issue is that the player did not remove the pawn from the 7th rank.
You said, " the piece is not finalised until it is on the 8th rank". But it is on the 8th rank.

Jesper Norgaard
23-05-2010, 05:37 PM
What if white had a queen on e3, then plays 1.Qe3-e8 (not removing the pawn e7) and press the clock, but then claims after his opponents claim of an illegal move that he meant 1.e7-e8=Q does he then get to return the white queen to e3, another one to e8 and remove pawn e7, or must he return the move entirely and make any legal move with Qe3 (pawn on e7, nothing on e8)? Okay, maybe I'm hallucinating, it's pretty late here in Mexico.

Bill Gletsos
23-05-2010, 06:06 PM
As you will see from the above quote "but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank", I assume it stayed on e7.However there is no claim that it remained on the board after the queen was placed on the board, only that it was not moved from the 7th to the 8th rank before the queen was placed on the board.
In fact it can be seen from Geurt's answer that he interpreted the situation in that way.

Vlad
23-05-2010, 07:08 PM
I agree with Bill that from the answer it is clear that Geurt Gijssen interpreted the question the same way as either me or Bill. However, it is not so clear what R.Anantharam meant. It is quite possible that he was asking the question in the way Garvinator interpreted. In this case they had a miscommunication.:)

Garvinator
23-05-2010, 07:37 PM
I agree with Bill that from the answer it is clear that Geurt Gijssen interpreted the question the same way as either me or Bill. However, it is not so clear what R.Anantharam meant. It is quite possible that he was asking the question in the way Garvinator interpreted. In this case they had a miscommunication.:)This is all true. I had viewed the question that the player left the pawn on e7, even after completing his move.

I now see from Bill's response that Geurt, at least, has viewed the question as being that the player was complaining that his opponent had not pushed the pawn to e8 and then queened, but instead just plonked the queen on e8, then removed the pawn (kinda the normal procedure nowadays).

I probably did not consider the question in that vein because I did not think anyone complains about that nowadays :uhoh:

Jesper Norgaard
24-05-2010, 01:11 AM
Suppose a player places a new queen on the eighth rank, but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank. The move is illegal, because it violates Article 3.7 e. Then, after adding two minutes to the opponent, the player promoting the pawn changes his mind and places a knight by the correct procedure. Is this allowed or does he have to keep the queen, as the queen has already touched the promoting square? Thanks and regards,

One thing is for sure, the Indian did not express himself crystal clear (maybe it was a BogusIndian?).

"but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank" I don't see how that can be misinterpreted, it just NEVER (key word) left the seventh rank! "Then, after adding two minutes to the opponent" wait a minute, that would only be an illegal move if the clock was pressed, or else it is just an incompleted sequence of actions that could become a legal move (albeit queening like the computer does), so here Anantharam fails to specify that the clock was pressed, or the supposed arbiter intervention (which is not mentioned, did one of the players give black the two minutes?) and when was the arbiter called?

Let me interpret this the way it was literally expressed by Anantharam. The clock was actually never pressed and the arbiter never called. Instead, the new queen is placed on the 8.th. rank in front of the pawn and in this moment no illegal move is completed, and no time penalty is applicable. However, by putting a new queen on the 8.th. rank it is crystal clear that a promotion is intended, and then since the promotion piece touched the promotion square, he can no longer replace it with another piece even though the pawn is still on the 7.th. rank. This I believe is what Geurt should have answered. Also if the clock was not pressed there was no illegal move yadda yadda, if the arbiter was not called a time penalty should not be imposed yadda yadda.

Denis_Jessop
24-05-2010, 06:10 PM
I think that what has happened here is that the Indian questioner has used the word "never" in an incorrect way familiar to young english-speking people people who are told not to use it that way.

For example: Teacher: Johnny did you spill that ink? Johnny: No, miss, I never. It was Billy what done it.

Taken literally, the statement that the pawn never left the 7th rank is absurd as it gives the situation where there was a Q on the 8th rank and a P on the 7th at the same time and the P remained on the 7th throughout. Geurt has assumed that the questioner meant that the Q was placed on the 8th rank without the P having first having been moved from the 7th to the 8th as required by the Laws. I think that this is clearly what the questioner meant to convey. Any other interpretation is nonsensical as is the use of the word "never" in this context.

DJ

Jesper Norgaard
25-05-2010, 03:16 AM
I think that what has happened here is that the Indian questioner has used the word "never" in an incorrect way ...
Taken literally, the statement that the pawn never left the 7th rank is absurd as it gives the situation where there was a Q on the 8th rank and a P on the 7th at the same time and the P remained on the 7th throughout.
... Any other interpretation is nonsensical as is the use of the word "never" in this context.
I disagree with this interpretation, because the whole question from Anantharam would not make much sense in the first place if the pawn was actually removed from the 7.th. rank. The reason it makes sense to ask whether the person promoting to a queen can still make up his mind if it is a knight, and that there should be a time penalty for an illegal move, is *only* because the pawn is still on the 7.th. or else it would not be illegal and it would not be possible to change the promotion to be with a knight. Essentially he is asking "since the pawn is still there, did the promotion take place in the first place? If it didn't, can't I change my mind and promote to a knight?"

CameronD
25-05-2010, 06:57 AM
i took it to mean that the played picked up the pawn and placed a queen, realized he stuffed up and tried to get out of it by claiming illegal move on himself.

Bill Gletsos
25-05-2010, 03:02 PM
I disagree with this interpretation, because the whole question from Anantharam would not make much sense in the first place if the pawn was actually removed from the 7.th. rank. The reason it makes sense to ask whether the person promoting to a queen can still make up his mind if it is a knight, and that there should be a time penalty for an illegal move, is *only* because the pawn is still on the 7.th. or else it would not be illegal and it would not be possible to change the promotion to be with a knight. Essentially he is asking "since the pawn is still there, did the promotion take place in the first place? If it didn't, can't I change my mind and promote to a knight?"
I totally disagree with your interpretation of the letter.

I interpret it as follows:

The player places a queen on the 8th rank without ever moving his pawn to the 8th rank, then removes the pawn on the 7th rank from the board.

His opponent complains that this is not the correct way to promote a pawn as the pawn should be moved from the 7th rank to the 8th rank first and then replaced by the queen.

The arbiter apparently agreed and penalised the player the player 2 minutes and in accordance with the laws of chess reset the position to before the queen was placed on the board with the pawn still on the 7th rank.

The player using the correct procedure moved the pawn from the 7th rank to the 8th rank but this time promoted it to a Knight instead of a Queen.

The question was then was this promotion to the Knight permitted or was he forced to keep it a Queen.

This clearly how Geurt interpreted the situation.

Jesper Norgaard
25-05-2010, 04:16 PM
I reckon many interpretations can be correct with so imprecise a description. In fact in #18 I overlooked that the illegality could consist of only one thing: not moving the pawn from the seventh rank to the eighth rank. In that case the question still makes sense as Bill puts it:


The question was then was this promotion to the Knight permitted or was he forced to keep it a Queen.
The only thing crystal clear is that Geurt didn't answer it for whatever reason. He preferred just to answer his favorite question and ignoring the rest. His favorite question is: Can you promote as a computer without moving the pawn? Answer: Yes you can!

And here I would like to add, unless your arbiter of the day was not brought up in the Stewart Reuben and Geurt Gijssen school, and therefore has not been indoctrinated on how he should think, but only reads the rules as they are. In that case he might go for the literal description that the pawn must be moved from the seventh rank to the eighth rank. Would it really be so much effort to actually express the alternative as being valid too?

Sometimes I have a feeling he is afraid that if the rules were made clearer then he would not have so many questions to ChessCafe "An Arbiter's Notebook" and soon after he would be out of a job - so better not fix it even though it's broken.

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2010, 01:59 PM
On the interpretation question, the supposedly ambiguous sentence is:


Suppose a player places a new queen on the eighth rank, but never moves the pawn from the seventh rank.

Now suppose the sentence had been:


Suppose a player places a new queen on the eighth rank, but never removes the pawn from the seventh rank.

... then there would be little doubt that what the questioner was talking about was leaving the pawn on the board. Given that he said "moves" not "removes" I think it's far more likely he's talking about whisking the pawn off the board without touching it down on the final rank. So I agree with Bill in #20.

All that said, did Geurt answer the question? In either case the answer is no, he did not.

Shame because it is actually a very good question (I am assuming Bill's interpretation) and there are a number of possible variants to it. I would apply touchmove on the choice of the replacing piece since the player's original intention is crystal clear and the illegality results only from a technical failure in performing the move.


Sometimes I have a feeling he is afraid that if the rules were made clearer then he would not have so many questions to ChessCafe "An Arbiter's Notebook" and soon after he would be out of a job - so better not fix it even though it's broken.

I wonder if Geurt is paid by ChessCafe for writing his columns. Does anyone know?

Jesper Norgaard
30-05-2010, 05:12 PM
I wonder if Geurt is paid by ChessCafe for writing his columns. Does anyone know?
I always assumed the authors were not paid since all PDFs are downloadable for free, and no subscription is involved. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesscafe.com says it was founded in 1996 by Hanon Russell, and that Russell Enterprises are behind, so there might actually be a payment involved. I don't know that for a fact though, just guesswork.

Still I don't believe that it would be Geurt's main income even close, while his duties as an arbiter and rules commission chairman for FIDE are probably much more lucrative. Anyways my comment was made in a humorous vain, I did not actually think that this would be the reason for a lack of rule changes, rather the slow process of getting the rules commission on the same level of understanding and voting, is probably not an easy task. And FIDE has always been bureaucratic since you have to get 158 national chess associations n'sync.

Jesper Norgaard
18-01-2012, 03:06 PM
There was continuation to these issues about promoting without moving the pawn in the December 12.th. 2011 issue.

Pranesh Yadav (India) asks:
"In that tournament one of the players incorrectly promoted a pawn. Before moving the pawn to the eighth rank, he placed his queen on the promotion square. The arbiter declared that it was an illegal move. In your previous article you said that both types are OK, but the arbiter said that he was only following the rules. What is your opinion, sir? Thank you."

Geurt answers:
"I have answered this question many times. At the next FIDE Congress, I would like to propose to permit the two possibilities. If an arbiter sticks to the procedure as currently stated in the Laws of Chess, he is not to blame."

It seems that every now and then Geurt get's too bored answering the same question again, he turns 180° and answers something completely different. Now he wants to go back to that the arbiter must deem this illegal, probably an illegal move although graciously he doesn't say what the arbiter should actually do, let alone could do without being blamed. We are left with guesswork.

This is all too horrifying for me. Houdini, Internet games, many grandmasters, the DGT boards, all agree that promoting without moving the pawn is fine, just that the move needs to be legal, and the pawn is removed before pressing the clock. Why don't we just change the rule to allow that? It would be so simple, but FIDE has never been attracted by the obvious, they seem to be allergic to the obvious and the truth, preferring the convoluted and pretending wrong is right, for instance that FIDE is a democracy.

Rule 3.7e is:
When a pawn reaches the rank furthest from its starting position it must be exchanged as part of the same move on the same square for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the pawn’s colour. The player’s choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called ‘promotion’ and the effect of the new piece is immediate.

I would suggest to add the following sentence to 3.7e:
Placing the promoted piece on the promotion square and then removing the pawn without moving it is allowed.

antichrist
18-01-2012, 03:25 PM
this rule could be to make sure that the player touches the pawn first rather than the piece to receive the promotion. It may be an unnecessary law but is logical and consistent. (I have not read previous posts here)

Rincewind
18-01-2012, 03:30 PM
If you are going to allow plonk and remove, requiring the player to touch the pawn first is illogical and would lead to as many disputes as currently. If you plonk a piece in the board it is clear you are promoting and there is usually only one pawn move possible. Although in the case of capture and plonk there could feasibly be two.

antichrist
18-01-2012, 03:39 PM
If you are going to allow plonk and remove, requiring the player to touch the pawn first is illogical and would lead to as many disputes as currently. If you plonk a piece in the board it is clear you are promoting and there is usually only one pawn move possible. Although in the case of capture and plonk there could feasibly be two.

should not allow plonk (presumably of piece) and remove (pawn), is not logical and if leads to fights then some people have to learn how to follow rules (like me on this board). To allow is introducing social game standards into competition level.

Rincewind
18-01-2012, 04:32 PM
should not allow plonk (presumably of piece) and remove (pawn), is not logical and if leads to fights then some people have to learn how to follow rules (like me on this board). To allow is introducing social game standards into competition level.

OK I see what you mean now. I misinterpreted your last post due to dodgy grammar.

Jesper Norgaard
20-01-2012, 03:06 PM
The most elegant way of "plonk and remove" is having the queen in the hand and capturing the promoting pawn the same way you would capture an opposing pawn - you take the queen in the hand and hold it with a few fingers (usually three middle fingers) and then move it over the pawn to place it behind the pawn, then grab the pawn with a few other fingers (usually thumb and little finger) in one swoop the operation is finished.

Plonk and remove would be the same except the queen would actually end up in one of the three squares in front of the pawn, instead of on the square where the opposing pawn is (when capturing an opposing pawn).

From here:
8/8/8/6K1/8/8/5kp1/8 b - - 0 65

To here:
8/8/8/6K1/8/8/5k2/6q1 w - - 0 66

What is wrong with this? To allow a bit of "social game standards" into blitz seems fine to me. What is the argument for not allowing it? Ordnung muss sein? Cheating with smart fingers? Cheating can always happen and is not more likely to happen here than in any other situation I think.

antichrist mentions to keep "competition level standards" but I don't understand that argument, if it is an argument. It is already allowed to begin to move after the opponent has released his piece and before he has pressed the clock, to have a smoother flow of actions - and being able to "plonk and remove" also makes for a smoother flow of queening. Why not? Doing the "what comes natural" like Mowgli in the jungle.

Jesper Norgaard
06-08-2012, 09:48 AM
Plonk and remove was not accepted by the arbiter in this Women Blitz event:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=T2wVy_52EJw

So she lost on illegal move in a completely winning position, when playing b8=Q without moving the pawn (only removing it).

I like the change in the latest suggestions to FIDE laws that KB has published to make any sequence valid, as long as there is a valid pawn move and simultaneous/resulting promotion available, then it doesn't matter if you move the pawn and then replace it with the queen, or remove the pawn put the queen, or put the queen and remove the pawn.

Is there anybody who knows what was the event, who was the players, and who was the aggressive arbiter?

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2012, 12:18 PM
Is there anybody who knows what was the event, who was the players, and who was the aggressive arbiter?

In comments the game is given as Maria Severina - Tatiana Fatianova with the following score:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e3 a6 4. Bxc4 Nf6 5. a4 e6 6. Nf3 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. Nc3 cxd4 9. exd4 Be7 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. Bxd5 Nb4 13. Bb3 O-O 14. Qxd8 Rxd8 15. Bf4 Nd3 16. Bc7 Rf8 17. Rab1 Bf6 18. Rfd1 Nc5 19.Bc2 Be6 20. b4 Nd7 21. Be4 Rfc8 22. Bxb7 Rxc7 23. Bxa8 Ra7 24. Bc6 Nb8 25. Bd5 Bf5 26. Nd4 Bxb1 27. Rxb1 Bxd4 28. b5 axb5 29. axb5 g6 30. Kf1 Rd7 31. Bf3 Kf8 32. Ke2 Re7+ 33. Kd3 Bb6 34. Kc4 Nd7 35. Kd5 Ke8 36. Kc6 Re6+ 37. Kb7 Ke7 38. Bc6 Nc5+ 39. Kxb6 Na4+ 40. Kc7 Kf6 41. b6 Re7+ 42. Bd7 Nc5 43. Rd1 Na6+ 44. Kc8 Re2 45. Rc1 Ke7 46. Bb5 Ra2 47. Bxa6 Rxa6 48. b7 Rb6 49. b8=Q (or not) 0-1

Bill Gletsos
06-08-2012, 01:49 PM
Is there anybody who knows what was the event, who was the players, and who was the aggressive arbiter?Event: Round 5 2010 Women's World Blitz Semi Final played September 2010 Moscow

Players: Maria Severina - Tatiana Fatianova

Arbiter: IA Andrzej Filipowicz

Kevin Bonham
06-08-2012, 02:08 PM
Arbiter: IA Andrzej Filipowicz

That is not Filipowicz in the video; it must be an assistant. An image of Filipowicz (who I actually played in the FIDE Congress blitz last year!) can be seen here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrzej_Filipowicz .

Jesper Norgaard
06-08-2012, 04:32 PM
That is not Filipowicz in the video; it must be an assistant. An image of Filipowicz (who I actually played in the FIDE Congress blitz last year!) can be seen here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrzej_Filipowicz .

Apparently he is here with Gaprindashvili, although I am no wiser to his identity ... He is probably a local Moscow chess arbiter.

2058