Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 90

Thread: Illegal Move

  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,310
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    This is why some believe Inarkiev may have tried to play the illegal move on purpose!
    I also wonder if Inarkiev was hoping that Carlsen would play RxK. Thanks to that moronic law pushed by Gijssen calling king capture illegal, Carlsen would have been the loser. Gijssen is so obsessed with this nonsense that he even claims that a king capture after a legally played checkmate should lose the game.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  2. #62
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,310
    Quote Originally Posted by TomekP View Post
    Therefore the appeal was rejected. The committee also decided that the appeal fee should be returned as the claim was not frivolous.

    I disagree with the last. The whole situation was brought about by Inarkiev's frivolous gamesmanship.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  3. #63
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I also wonder if Inarkiev was hoping that Carlsen would play RxK. Thanks to that moronic law pushed by Gijssen calling king capture illegal, Carlsen would have been the loser.
    I've never understood the motivation for that rule. Has Gijssen ever tried to explain it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Gijssen is so obsessed with this nonsense that he even claims that a king capture after a legally played checkmate should lose the game.
    Crazy. Checkmate, if delivered as a legal move, ends the game. It is completely irrelevant what happens after that point. Again, what is the motivation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan
    I disagree with the last. The whole situation was brought about by Inarkiev's frivolous gamesmanship.
    I think so too, but the situation should still have been manageable notwithstanding Inarkiev's behaviour. The main reason the situation got out of hand was because the arbiter was inept and didn't know the rules. I wouldn't support refunding the appeal fee.
    Last edited by Andrew Hardegen; 31-12-2017 at 02:17 PM.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  4. #64
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    What I can see out of this situation is that there might be some benefit to the change of the rules to the 2018 version. From 2018 onwards, a player can not just attempt to swindle a game by getting their opponent to make an illegal move, such as capturing the opponent's king, on the first 'go'.

    Perhaps this situation has maybe had an added unintended benefit.

  5. #65
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    I also wonder if Inarkiev was hoping that Carlsen would play RxK. Thanks to that moronic law pushed by Gijssen calling king capture illegal, Carlsen would have been the loser. Gijssen is so obsessed with this nonsense that he even claims that a king capture after a legally played checkmate should lose the game.
    Capturing the king is not a part of a chess game. As such I don't even consider it to be a chess move, thus, it cannot be an illegal chess move, and I have always refused to rule on it as such. I generally interpret it as one way of validly claiming an illegal move, if the king is left en prise.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  6. #66
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    I've never understood the motivation for that rule. Has Gijssen ever tried to explain it?
    The sound reason for the rule is to eliminate king capture because a king capture may remove the evidence of its own illegality. So for instance white captures black's king, which stands on e8 and claims a win. Black then counter-claims that white's queen was on d1 and the king capture was illegal. The arbiter was watching from a distance and could see a long queen capture but not which square it started from. In contrast, suppose white simply claims a win and stops the clock. The arbiter can see that white has not made a move and can come over and see that an illegal move must have been made.

    I did put it to Geurt once that this was a particularly good reason for banning king capture and he said that is why it was banned. I am puzzled that people consider the rule to be silly when there is this good reason for it. They assume it must be a purist killjoy thing because that is how they experience it.

    There are other arguments for banning it - for instance what happens if one or both kings is/are captured but the players just carry on playing without the capturer claiming a win.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 31-12-2017 at 05:04 PM.

  7. #67
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Therefore the appeal was rejected. The committee also decided that the appeal fee should be returned as the claim was not frivolous.

    I disagree with the last. The whole situation was brought about by Inarkiev's frivolous gamesmanship.
    I also would not have refunded the appeal deposit. The appeal may or may not have been frivolous but in my view it was not a reasonable appeal or one with any merit as the rules on this are clear-cut and experienced players should know them.

  8. #68
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    I've never understood the motivation for that rule. Has Gijssen ever tried to explain it?
    I think so, but it didn't sound cogent at all. He canvassed this rule change in his column, and I opposed because it was turning what had been a way of claiming a win into a loss. But he got his way. Ian Rogers opposed the change at the time and has more recently noted unsportsmanlike behaviour to game this new rule.

    [Edit: saw KB's post after posting mine.]

    But before this, there was another unsportsmanlike behavior in lightning: in a lost position, most the K next to the enemy K, then play K x K. In an Australian champs, IIRC about 1998, the chief arbiter disallowed that, and while I can't remember all his reasoning it seemed sensible. Then I emailed Gijssen about it for his ChessCafe column, and he agreed with the arbiter as well, but also said that taking the K was not legal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    Crazy. Checkmate, if delivered as a legal move, ends the game. It is completely irrelevant what happens after that point. Again, what is the motivation?
    Of course. Everyone on ChessChat agreed that the rule said that, but Gijssen dug in—see the old thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    I think so too, but the situation should still have been manageable notwithstanding Inarkiev's behaviour. The main reason the situation got out of hand was because the arbiter was inept and didn't know the rules. I wouldn't support refunding the appeal fee.
    Incredibly inept, especially as there was nothing illegal about Carlsen's move, as you pointed out.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 31-12-2017 at 05:10 PM.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  9. #69
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I also would not have refunded the appeal deposit. The appeal may or may not have been frivolous but in my view it was not a reasonable appeal or one with any merit as the rules on this are clear-cut and experienced players should know them.
    They may have exercised a degree of kindess because of the quick turnaround not giving him much opportunity to decide whether to appeal.

    More likely it was motivated by bottom-covering - ruling the appeal frivolous would emphasise how erroneous the first decision was.

  10. #70
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Given that it is a large blitz event and not one arbiter per board, I think we are being a little bit harsh on the first arbiter for not getting this decision correct. I can understand how the arbiter arrived at that decision, depending on what information they were given.

    It was only after the appeal and more detailed information and time taken to sort the matter out that the correct conclusion was reached. Does not excuse the refusal to play on though.

    So I think a few other factors should probably be asked. Are there enough arbiters for the event as a whole ie at least one arbiter per three boards so competition rules apply (that is a rough guide), or some other kind of factors to assist.

    As for whether to return the appeal money, yes, most likely it was a butt covering exercise.

  11. #71
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,379
    Another thing about refunding the deposit - appeals are especially problematic in blitz events because of the delays they cause, so all the more reason to generally not refund deposits for rejected appeals unless the appeal has some sort of merit.

  12. #72
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    I can understand how the arbiter arrived at that decision, depending on what information they were given.
    I can't. The video shows clearly that the arbiter should have known Carlsen had not made an illegal move:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtu9DqGin4M

  13. #73
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The sound reason for the rule is to eliminate king capture because a king capture may remove the evidence of its own illegality. So for instance white captures black's king, which stands on e8 and claims a win. Black then counter-claims that white's queen was on d1 and the king capture was illegal. The arbiter was watching from a distance and could see a long queen capture but not which square it started from. In contrast, suppose white simply claims a win and stops the clock. The arbiter can see that white has not made a move and can come over and see that an illegal move must have been made.

    I did put it to Geurt once that this was a particularly good reason for banning king capture and he said that is why it was banned. I am puzzled that people consider the rule to be silly when there is this good reason for it. They assume it must be a purist killjoy thing because that is how they experience it.
    Thanks Kevin. I now accept that Gijssen's rule is a kind of solution the problem that you describe. But for me this is more of a hypothetical problem because in my tournament career, I have not once witnessed any two players disagreeing in such manner over the position of the pieces, even in a blitz game. But this is some kind of motivation for Gijssen's rule.

    Most of the opposition to Gijssen's rule is due to the fact that it is a travesty of justice -- it needlessly introduces considerable potential for players to lose games that they have effectively won. I have seen the kind of gamesmanship that Capablanca-Fan describes on too many occasions -- players deliberately moving into or leaving their king in check, in the hope that their opponent will capture the king and lose. It would be nice to expel such players from tournaments and/or impose bans, but how do you prove that such skulduggery is deliberate abuse of the rule?

    The law does not pass my cost-benefit analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    There are other arguments for banning it - for instance what happens if one or both kings is/are captured but the players just carry on playing without the capturer claiming a win.
    I haven't seen this one in practice either, but I feel that A.4.4 could easily be generalised to cover this kind of situation. If it is clear that both players are just messing around, then the arbiter could just give them both zero points.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  14. #74
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Given that it is a large blitz event and not one arbiter per board, I think we are being a little bit harsh on the first arbiter for not getting this decision correct. I can understand how the arbiter arrived at that decision, depending on what information they were given.
    I can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    It was only after the appeal and more detailed information and time taken to sort the matter out that the correct conclusion was reached. Does not excuse the refusal to play on though.
    Inarkiev was clearly losing. Refusal to play on is effectively equivalent to resigning an adjourned position -- surely Inarkiev is entitled to resign?

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    So I think a few other factors should probably be asked. Are there enough arbiters for the event as a whole ie at least one arbiter per three boards so competition rules apply (that is a rough guide), or some other kind of factors to assist.
    For Competition Rules to apply in Blitz, you need one arbiter per board.

    You can have as many arbiters as you like -- but if one or more of them doesn't know the rules, there will be chaos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    As for whether to return the appeal money, yes, most likely it was a butt covering exercise.
    I agree. Maybe they also just felt sorry for him.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  15. #75
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    But for me this is more of a hypothetical problem because in my tournament career, I have not once witnessed any two players disagreeing in such manner over the position of the pieces, even in a blitz game.
    I didn't have that exact situation in the days when king capture was allowed, but I have certainly had illegal move disputes - one of them in the 2017 Australian Blitz - where the players disagreed about where a piece was at the time of the alleged illegality. I've also had countless junior disputes about whether a queen could be taken or not where the players argued about the position.

    Most of the opposition to Gijssen's rule is due to the fact that it is a travesty of justice -- it needlessly introduces considerable potential for players to lose games that they have effectively won.
    I think this was more of an issue when the change was made. The ban on king capture has been around quite a long time now. If a player can't keep up with the rules after all this time and is still taking kings then they deserve to lose for sheer laziness concerning the rules of the game they play, if nothing else. In every other sport I can think of, players are expected to adjust to changes in the rules.

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
  •