Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

Thread: Illegal Move

  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,810
    Interesting ruling today at the World Blitz Championship in Carlsen=Inarkiev...
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #47
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Interesting ruling today at the World Blitz Championship in Carlsen=Inarkiev...
    The original arbiter's decision was simply wrong.

    Fortunately his decision was overturned by the Chief Arbiter who correctly ruled the game should continue.
    Apparently Inarkiev refused and the game was awarded to magnus.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos View Post
    The original arbiter's decision was simply wrong.

    Fortunately his decision was overturned by the Chief Arbiter who correctly ruled the game should continue.
    Apparently Inarkiev refused and the game was awarded to magnus.
    Anyway, if continued -white is winning easily!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  4. #49
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Disappointing to see such a bad ruling in a World Championship.

    Quote Originally Posted by FIDE Laws of Chess
    3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
    3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9.
    Carlsen's move is clearly legal as it meets all of the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1-3.9. The remaining question is whether failing to claim an illegal move should result in loss of game. In all cases, the answer is no, but assuming that B.4 (hence A.4) applied:

    Quote Originally Posted by FIDE Laws of Chess
    A.4.2

    If the arbiter observes an illegal move has been completed, he shall declare the game lost by the player, provided the opponent has not made his next move. If the arbiter does not intervene, the opponent is entitled to claim a win, provided the opponent has not made his next move. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves. If the opponent does not claim and the arbiter does not intervene, the illegal move shall stand and the game shall continue. Once the opponent has made his next move, an illegal move cannot be corrected unless this is agreed by the players without intervention of the arbiter.
    There is nothing too complicated about the rule. Unfortunately it is widely misunderstood. The misunderstanding is propagated by incidents like these, with so many `expert' arbiters and commentators getting it wrong.
    Last edited by Andrew Hardegen; 30-12-2017 at 02:20 AM.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  5. #50
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,740
    Is it known who the arbiters involved were? The original decision was a bunny-blunder. A player can make a legal move in an illegal position.

  6. #51
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    Is it known who the arbiters involved were? The original decision was a bunny-blunder. A player can make a legal move in an illegal position.
    Peter Doggers report on chess.com mentions that Carlsen’s board arbiter was Carlos Oliveira Dias. He has been an IA since 1997 and is a member of the Arbiters Commission.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  7. #52
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,740
    A problem sometimes seen is that leading IAs have relatively little experience with blitz and rapid. However Dias has a lot of experience with rapid at least.

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,081
    Seems to be a bit of cross situation going on here. Was the final decision of the chief arbiter to rewind the position back to before or at Rxb7, or to play on from Kd3?

    From reading CF's commentary, the position was re-wound back to Carlsen's Rxb7, but from my reading of the rule quoted above, Carlsen played Kd3 and it was only then that a claim was made, so play should re-commence from after Kd3?

    I am thoroughly confused.

  9. #54
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Seems to be a bit of cross situation going on here. Was the final decision of the chief arbiter to rewind the position back to before or at Rxb7, or to play on from Kd3?

    From reading CF's commentary, the position was re-wound back to Carlsen's Rxb7, but from my reading of the rule quoted above, Carlsen played Kd3 and it was only then that a claim was made, so play should re-commence from after Kd3?

    I am thoroughly confused.
    CF's post lifted from Kasparov's Facebook which also had a link to this:

    https://twitter.com/TarjeiJS/status/946813244416684032

    Tarjei Svenson has an audio of the discussion between Inarkiev and Takis Nikolopoulos. Firstly it shows Takis saying that Inarkiev is to continue after Kd3 so I am not sure where the comment in the notation of CF's post comes from.

    What is more interesting here is that Takis says Inarkiev can "correct the illegal position by moving your king. Or if you don't move your king then the illegal position remains and we declare a draw." So the suggestion is Inarkiev could secure a draw by deliberately playing another illegal move.

    However that is incorrect.

    A.4.4 has:

    A.4.4

    If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.

    However after Carlsen's Kd3 the position on the board was no longer illegal, as it could have been reached by a series of legal moves (the last of them being Rxb7), even though we actually know it wasn't. Carlsen had played a legal move in an illegal position and as a result reached a legal position. Even if Inarkiev now again places both kings in check, A.4.4 does not apply as the decision point for it has already passed.

    The definition of illegal position is "A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves."
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 30-12-2017 at 08:37 PM.

  10. #55
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Seems to be a bit of cross situation going on here. Was the final decision of the chief arbiter to rewind the position back to before or at Rxb7, or to play on from Kd3?

    From reading CF's commentary, the position was re-wound back to Carlsen's Rxb7, but from my reading of the rule quoted above, Carlsen played Kd3 and it was only then that a claim was made, so play should re-commence from after Kd3?

    I am thoroughly confused.
    No idea where Casablanca-Fan's comment comes from.
    The Chief Arbiters decision was that the position go back to after Carlsen's Kd3 as per Article A.4.2
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
    Mos Eisley spaceport The toolbox. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos View Post
    No idea where Casablanca[sic]-Fan's comment comes from.
    The Chief Arbiters decision was that the position go back to after Carlsen's Kd3 as per Article A.4.2
    It came from ChessGames.com as stated. I've now referred them to this thread for the right information.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 31-12-2017 at 03:11 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,510
    The irony is that the 27... Ne3+ 28. Kd3 makes the position far more lost than before, because after either piece takes on b7, 29. Bxe8+ forces the exchange of the other Rs, and the N is en prise!
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #58
    CC Candidate Master TomekP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    28

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    The irony is that the 27... Ne3+ 28. Kd3 makes the position far more lost than before, because after either piece takes on b7, 29. Bxe8+ forces the exchange of the other Rs, and the N is en prise!
    This is why some believe Inarkiev may have tried to play the illegal move on purpose!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  15. #60
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,200
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    This is why some believe Inarkiev may have tried to play the illegal move on purpose!
    Well that's part of the game if so. "Illegal" in blitz doesn't mean the same as in normal chess, where an illegal move can't stand. In blitz it's just a bad move (normally) because your opponent can claim the game, but you can get away with it just as you might get away with putting a Queen en prise.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Checkmate with illegal move
    By Jesper Norgaard in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 19-04-2013, 11:10 AM
  2. Draw after illegal move
    By Czentovic in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18-08-2010, 04:50 PM
  3. Illegal move
    By Igor_Goldenberg in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 04:48 AM
  4. Illegal move/Unlawful move
    By Jesper Norgaard in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 28-10-2009, 08:42 AM
  5. Replies: 82
    Last Post: 26-04-2009, 12:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •