PDA

View Full Version : FIDE "World Womens Champs" knockout in Nalchik



Kevin Bonham
24-08-2008, 09:53 PM
This event is scheduled from Aug 28 - Sep 18.

The venue is hugely contentious because of its proximity to Georgia and the recent war between Russia and Georgia.

Ian Rogers has criticised the event in no uncertain terms (see TCG excerpts here (http://closetgrandmaster.blogspot.com/2008/08/rogers-womens-championship-farce.html).

I don't think the inevitable Georgian boycott will do much to harm the credibility of the outcome - as one "Vladimir" (but I am unsure which one!) points out in comments, the Georgians are not that much of a threat on seedings despite their formidable record in the past.

That said, I don't think the outcome will have much credibility anyway because it is yet another trashy FIDE knockout with 2-game matches up til the final which is 4 games (and even if it was more credible it would still be for #2).

List of players here (http://nalchik2008.fide.com/players/?lang=eng) although that should be taken with considerable caution as the Georgians are expected to withdraw and it's not impossible some others will do so.

Vlad
01-09-2008, 10:58 AM
Again a scandal in the woman chess and again armageddon involved...

Two females were playing K+N vs K+N until one of them lost on time. The person who lost on time did not stop the clock but rather was constantly loudly claiming a draw.

The arbiter ruled it as a draw anyway. The unhappy female complained. The complaint was considered by the appeal committee and it looks like they changed the decision of the arbiter. As usual the appeal committee consisted of “usual suspects”. Alexei Shirov on the Russian chess chat said something like “There is this naughty animal. You kick him out from the door; it will come from the window.”

Garvinator
01-09-2008, 11:23 AM
Who was the chief arbiter who got this one so wrong? I can not find the name anywhere and some are claiming it is being deliberately withheld.

Bill Gletsos
01-09-2008, 12:32 PM
Who was the chief arbiter who got this one so wrong? I can not find the name anywhere and some are claiming it is being deliberately withheld.I do not see how that is true given the arbiters names are quite visible on the tournament website.

Arbiters

Zsuzsanna Veroci Hungary Chief Arbiter
Mikko Markkula Finland Deputy Chief Arbiter
Galina Strutinskaia Russia Deputy Arbiter
Vyacheslav Khamruev Russia Deputy Arbiter

Appeals Committee


Georgios Makropoulos Greece Chairman of the Appeals Committee
Boris Kutin Montenegro Member of the Appeals Committee
Lakhdar Mazouz Germany Member of the Appeals Committee

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2008, 09:03 PM
Two females were playing K+N vs K+N until one of them lost on time. The person who lost on time did not stop the clock but rather was constantly loudly claiming a draw.

This was Monika Socko vs Sabina-Francesca Foisor. Foisor was black needing only a draw but her flag fell. It was armageddon 6 vs 5.

Firstly FIDE have rocks in their head to be playing armageddon with no increments. (I'd say this is especially so after the Zatonskih-Krush incident but maybe the conditions were locked in before that.)

I'd like to know more details (and ideally see a video if there is one) before commenting further but Foisor certainly did not do herself any favours by failing to stop the clock. There is actually no formal draw she can claim in a blitz game in this position (since 10.2 does not apply) but in general a player who wishes to ask an arbiter to declare a game drawn must stop the clock.

By the way here is the list of defaults in the first round:

Sebag, Marie FRA 2529
Chiburdanidze, Maya GEO 2489
Krush, Irina USA 2470
Javakhishvili, Lela GEO 2461
Korbut, Ekaterina RUS 2459
Lomineishvili, Maya GEO 2414
Khurtsidze, Nino GEO 2413
Khukhashvili, Sopiko GEO 2408
Bosboom Lanchava, Tea NED 2358
Gvetadze, Sopio GEO 2355
Zapata, Karen PER 2180

Denis_Jessop
01-09-2008, 10:07 PM
For interest's sake here is the text of the Appeals Committee's Ruling:


Appeal's Committee Ruling
August 31, 2008

The Appeals Committee met today 31.08.2008 at 20.00 hrs to examine a protest made by the player Ms Monika Socko regarding her game with Sabina-Francesca Foisor.

The complainant fulfilled the conditions concerning the $ 500 deposit

The protest has been examined under the provision of Article 3.17, par. 3.17.1, point a) and d) of the Regulations for the Women's World Chess Championship.

The protest related to the sudden death game between Ms Monika Socko (white) and Ms Sabina-Francesca Foisor (black) where, in the final position, both players had a king and a knight each.

The flag of black fell indicating that the game was lost on time.

However the Chief Arbiter decided that the game was drawn based on Article 9.6 of the Laws of Chess. The Chief Arbiter indicated that in order to achieve a position where white threatens to mate black in the next move, needs that black intentionally places his king and knight so that white can mate in the next move (White: Kc7,Nb6 - Black: Ka8,Na7).

Article 9.6 states that, quote "The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position is legal."

In her protest, Ms Monika Socko contended that she had won the game based on the fact that the flag of her opponent had fallen.

Having considered the arguments presented by the player in her protest and the decision of the Chief Arbiter, the Appeals Committee has decided that indeed based on the provisions of Article 9.6, playing in a most unskilled manner can result in the position indicated by the Chief Arbiter which can lead to a checkmate.

Therefore the Appeals Committee has decided that the game is a win for white.

Georgios Makropoulos, Chairman

Lewis Ncube, member

Lakhdar Mazouz, member

DJ

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2008, 11:46 PM
Thanks Denis.


However the Chief Arbiter decided that the game was drawn based on Article 9.6 of the Laws of Chess. The Chief Arbiter indicated that in order to achieve a position where white threatens to mate black in the next move, needs that black intentionally places his king and knight so that white can mate in the next move (White: Kc7,Nb6 - Black: Ka8,Na7).

Ah, I see what Garvin was getting at with his comment that the Chief Arbiter "got this one so wrong", as indeed she did; Article 9.6 is most certainly not applicable here and the Appeals Committee ruled correctly on that matter.

Actually if Foisor indeed did not stop her clock then in my view the awarding of a win to Socko is correct. Or at least if the arbiter considered the game in progress to be so scandalous that a draw was required then the arbiter should have stopped the clocks and taken some action to that effect before flagfall.

Ian Rout
02-09-2008, 09:34 AM
There is also some discussion on chessexpress here (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/09/but-rules-are-rules.html), which appears to lean to the view that Socko was being unpsorting in enforcing the rules.

The trouble is that White doesn't have the option of saying "Well a draw is a fair thing, let's stop here." A draw is a loss and she can reasonably expect that if the boot was on the other foot her opponent would claim the win.

More importantly though, winning on time in lightning is not unpsorting. Many games of speed chess are won by a player who has a position that they would be unlikely to win, or indeed would be almost certain to lose, at slower time limits. The purpose of the wording of the rule is to provide a clear delineation of where a game is drawn; it isn't feasible to have an arbiter make a judgement on "insufficient losing chances" in a speed game, or to have the clock stop for several minutes or even a few seconds while they think about it.

The real problem is in using a speed game as a tie-break, or at a deeper level in using two-game knockouts to decide a major title.

MichaelBaron
02-09-2008, 12:25 PM
Lots of questions should be asked about Fide's way of running things. First of all they are happy to deal with anyone who can come up with the money. I can recall Men's WC being held in Libia. Compared to Libia, Nalchik is a safety heaven. Besides, I feel that majority of the refusals to come to Nalchik are motivated by political reasons rather than by genuine safety concerns.


Regarding K+N vs. K+N. The arbiter should obviously stop the clock and declare the game a draw. Was their an arbiter around? I have a feeling that Fide's selection of arbiters and appeal committee memebers has led to too many disputes recently. Whether its world juniors, or toilet-gate in Elista or Women's WC - something always happens.:hmm:

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 01:07 PM
Regarding K+N vs. K+N. The arbiter should obviously stop the clock and declare the game a draw.Please quote the Article in the FIDE Laws of Chess that allows the arbiter to do this.

Denis_Jessop
02-09-2008, 01:40 PM
There is also some discussion on chessexpress here (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/09/but-rules-are-rules.html), which appears to lean to the view that Socko was being unpsorting in enforcing the rules.

The trouble is that White doesn't have the option of saying "Well a draw is a fair thing, let's stop here." A draw is a loss and she can reasonably expect that if the boot was on the other foot her opponent would claim the win.

More importantly though, winning on time in lightning is not unpsorting. Many games of speed chess are won by a player who has a position that they would be unlikely to win, or indeed would be almost certain to lose, at slower time limits. The purpose of the wording of the rule is to provide a clear delineation of where a game is drawn; it isn't feasible to have an arbiter make a judgement on "insufficient losing chances" in a speed game, or to have the clock stop for several minutes or even a few seconds while they think about it.

The real problem is in using a speed game as a tie-break, or at a deeper level in using two-game knockouts to decide a major title.

I agree. Some of the comments made seem to overlook the point you made about it being vital for Socko to win. After all, this is a World Championship knock-out event, not Saturday skittles in the park - not even a Swiss or R-R tournament where losing may not have been "final" .

Kevin remarked that FIDE must have rocks in their head for using a sudden death game without increments. I'd go one further and say that they must have rocks in their head having a sudden death game at all. I'd even go so far as to say the same about using blitz games as tie-breakers in an event. You may just as well draw lots there and then.

DJ

MichaelBaron
02-09-2008, 02:13 PM
Please quote the Article in the FIDE Laws of Chess that allows the arbiter to do this.

This is simply common sense...how can one play K + N vs K + N? :doh:

tanc
02-09-2008, 02:23 PM
Bill,

Looking through the rule book on Article 10: Quickplay Finish, 10.2 states that:

"If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

1. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

2. b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."


I'm rather confused on the definition of "normal means", perhaps you can clarify them? What if one day in a similar situation, my opponent claims that his interpretation of "normal means" also includes a win on time? After all, in a sudden death game, wins on time are not uncommon or abnormal rulings. :hmm:

Rincewind
02-09-2008, 02:32 PM
I'm rather confused on the definition of "normal means", perhaps you can clarify them? What if one day in a similar situation, my opponent claims that his interpretation of "normal means" also includes a win on time? After all, in a sudden death game, wins on time are not uncommon or abnormal rulings. :hmm:

FWIW my interpretation of "normal means" in that rule is "by some means other than time". The provision is specifically there to prevent players playing on when their opponent is short or time from obviously drawn positions or from position where the win is difficult and they themselves do not know or lack the time to win on the board. Therefore you cannot classify a win on time as a win by normal means, however common it may become.

The point of that rule is of course the player must make a claim and the arbiter shouldn't intervene and stop the clock as suggested earlier by another poster.

Garvinator
02-09-2008, 02:49 PM
Hello tanc,

10.2 does not apply in blitz.

The game in question was played with white having 6 minutes (no increment) and black having 5 minutes (no increment) and black only had to draw to move to the next round.

C. Blitz

C1. A ‘blitz’ game is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15 minutes for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15 minutes.
C2. Play shall be governed by the Rapidplay Laws as in Appendix B except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Blitz.

The Articles 10.2 and B6 do not apply.(my bolding and underline)

C3. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible
series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then the claimant is entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move.
Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected



Bill,

Looking through the rule book on Article 10: Quickplay Finish, 10.2 states that:

"If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

1. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim.

2. b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result later in the game or after a flag has fallen. He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."


I'm rather confused on the definition of "normal means", perhaps you can clarify them? What if one day in a similar situation, my opponent claims that his interpretation of "normal means" also includes a win on time? After all, in a sudden death game, wins on time are not uncommon or abnormal rulings. :hmm:

Rincewind
02-09-2008, 03:00 PM
Please note that I agree 100% with ggragggray about the application of 10.2 to blitz games and I took tanc's enquiry as a more general question about the application of 10.2 with quickplay finishes.

tanc
02-09-2008, 03:05 PM
Hello Rincewind/ggrayggray,

Thanks for your input and clarifications. Much appreciated!

cheers

Ian Rout
02-09-2008, 03:09 PM
The other interesting point is that it would seem highly likely that Black did not know the rules - surely she would not have knowingly made an invalid claim (especially with her time still running). This is quite extraordinary for a tournament of such magnitude where there is a near-certainty of having to play blitz at some point to progress.

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 06:53 PM
This is simply common sense...how can one play K + N vs K + N? :doh:So what you are saying is that you cannot quote an actual Article of the Laws of Chess that supports your view.

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 07:00 PM
Bill,

Looking through the rule book on Article 10: Quickplay Finish, 10.2.....As already mentioned by Garvin, Article C2 states that Article 10.2 does not apply in Blitz.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 07:24 PM
There is also some discussion on chessexpress here (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/09/but-rules-are-rules.html), which appears to lean to the view that Socko was being unpsorting in enforcing the rules.

The trouble is that White doesn't have the option of saying "Well a draw is a fair thing, let's stop here." A draw is a loss and she can reasonably expect that if the boot was on the other foot her opponent would claim the win.

I think it would have been a very praiseworthy and sporting thing for Socko to do to concede the game as a draw and hence eliminate herself. No player who did such a thing would deserve criticism for failing to make the most of her chances. That said I find it difficult to say that her failure to do so was "unsporting", especially if she had a substantial lead on the clock, and given that agreeing a draw leads to elimination, and given that Foisor didn't even stop the clock to claim a draw (it's not clear yet if she even offered one).


The purpose of the wording of the rule is to provide a clear delineation of where a game is drawn; it isn't feasible to have an arbiter make a judgement on "insufficient losing chances" in a speed game, or to have the clock stop for several minutes or even a few seconds while they think about it.

Indeed. Under the old "mating potential" rules this would have been a draw but those rules can themselves be very difficult to calculate in some positions and don't really stop some of the "sillier" wins on time that can occur.


The real problem is in using a speed game as a tie-break, or at a deeper level in using two-game knockouts to decide a major title.

I still think the biggest problem in this case (in the sense of it being the most easily solved of the two main causes of the incident) is the lack of increments. Had there been a two second increment the game would have ended peacefully once KN v KN was reached.

[Re 10.2 which doesn't apply]



I'm rather confused on the definition of "normal means", perhaps you can clarify them? What if one day in a similar situation, my opponent claims that his interpretation of "normal means" also includes a win on time? After all, in a sudden death game, wins on time are not uncommon or abnormal rulings.

As noted above 10.2 does not apply in blitz.

We have a thread on 10.2 here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=947) where I'll answer your question as it applies to some other time limits.

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 10:09 PM
Armageddon video at http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus

Garvinator
02-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Armageddon video at http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus
Viewing through youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr86xZcJAaM

Any chance of an english version?

I find all this even more alarming. Who is the guy in the blue tie who is making a right royal pork chop of himself, in my opinion?

Garvinator
02-09-2008, 10:51 PM
Can not wait for Geurt's next chesscafe column as I have a sneaking suspicion that Geurt will receive questions about it.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 10:57 PM
Armageddon video at http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus

Excellent. I am reconstructing it and will post a reconstruction shortly.

Bereaved
02-09-2008, 11:05 PM
the Blue shirt guy is George Makropolous (sp?) who was one of the chief arbiters mentioned above,

In my opinion, the whole thing is a farce, but I would not argue that the person who won on time should be given a draw. The rules may be inequitable in some persons opinions, but they are still the rules, and until they are redrafted, altered, or removed, they must be applied.



Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 11:27 PM
Reconstruction of Stocko-Foisor playoff

The action starts at 1:20 on the video in a very drawish position.

1...Bf5 2.Ke5 Bxh3 3.Ng1? Bg2? [3...Bg4 wins a piece although it is still drawish] 4.Nxe2 h5 5.Ng3 Nb4? 6.Nxh5? [6.Bxb4+ wins] 6...Bf3? 7.Nf4? [7.Bxb4+ again wins] 7...Bd1 8.Kd4 As Socko presses her clock, her king is teetering and it falls over after she presses but she picks it up next move. 8...Bxb3 9.Kc5 Bxa4 As Foisor makes this move her bishop falls over and she makes no attempt to replace it on subsequent moves. 10.Kb6 Na2 11.Kxa5 Nxc3 12.Kb4 As she plays this move Socko picks up Foisor's bishop and puts it back on the board on her own time! 12...Kd6 13.Nd3 Nd5+ 14.Kxa4 Ke6 oneforty-six now. Foisor shrugs. 15.Nc5+ Kf5 Foisor shrugs again and says "draw" in a questioning tone of voice to nobody in particular. 16.Nd3 Ke4 17.Nb4?? Kd4?? [17...Nxb4 wins the match for Foisor!!!] 18.Nc6+ Kc5 19.Ne5 Kd6 In making this move Foisor knocks not only her king over but also Socko's knight off the board on her own side 20.Nd3 Socko reaches over and retrieves her knight from off the board as well as putting Foisor's king back on its square again on her own time! 20...Nf6 21.Nf4 Nd5 flag

Socko claims flag at 1:55. Within about 25 seconds it must have been called a draw as she is demonstrating the possible mate and saying that she doesn't understand (although the players have shaken hands.)

Contrary to what has been claimed before Foisor did nothing whatsoever that can clearly be interpreted as a draw claim. When she says "draw" (which only happens once that I can tell) it is hopelessly unclear if that is a claim or an offer.

I'm assuming Socko had more time since Socko has time to rectify misplaced pieces even when she shouldn't have to (and Foisor was by far the worse offender in terms of knocking pieces over and failing to replace.)

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 11:31 PM
Viewing through youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr86xZcJAaM

Any chance of an english version?

I find all this even more alarming. Who is the guy in the blue tie who is making a right royal pork chop of himself, in my opinion?The blue shirt guy is Mikko Markkula the Deputy Chief Arbiter.

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 11:31 PM
the Blue shirt guy is George Makropolous (sp?) who was one of the chief arbiters mentioned above,The blue shirt guy isnt Makropoulos (who is Chairman of the Appeals Committe).
After the game ends the guy in the suit with the blue shirt and striped dark blue tie speaking english is Mikko Markkula, the Deputy Chief Arbiter.
Makropoulos is seen near the end of the video sitting down next to Markkula when Markkula is arguing with the guy who took the video.
Markkula by the way is chairman of the FIDE Qualifications Commission.

What is a worry here is that both the Chief Arbiter Veroci and the Deputy Chief Arbiter Markkula both appear to believe that the mate must be able to be forced. It is clear from Article 9.6 that this is not the case due to the words "any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play".


In my opinion, the whole thing is a farce, but I would not argue that the person who won on time should be given a draw. The rules may be inequitable in some persons opinions, but they are still the rules, and until they are redrafted, altered, or removed, they must be applied.The rules as written were applied and the final position is not a draw under the rules.

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 11:34 PM
Armageddon video at http://nalchik2008.fide.com/video/?lang=rus

As the above video will likely not remain the top most video in the video list on that website, then the youtube video is the best.

jr86xZcJAaM

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 11:46 PM
This is simply common sense...how can one play K + N vs K + N? :doh:

One might just as well ask how can one play single-game blitz with no increments to decide a match in a so-called world championship? The situation is absurd, if people play absurd games in that situation who can blame them?

Bill Gletsos
02-09-2008, 11:56 PM
The following is from a report on Chessbase here (http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4879).

Socko gets into a debate with Deputy Chief Arbiter Mikko Markkula of Finnland, who initially says that the above mate is only possible with the cooperation of Black (not actually the point) and then starts getting annoyed and argues that the principals had disturbed the final position which was no longer available for adjudication. In the end he discusses the matter with Georgios Makropoulos, FIDE Deputy President and Chairman of the Appeals Committee, while Monika Socko calls experienced arbiter Andzhey Filipowicz back in Poland. After that a decision was apparently taken in favour of Socko, who proceeds to the next round.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 12:33 AM
Socko gets into a debate with Deputy Chief Arbiter Mikko Markkula of Finnland, who initially says that the above mate is only possible with the cooperation of Black (not actually the point)

Not literally correct on Markkula's part either. The mate does not require active co-operation of a high skill level by the losing party. It could happen by very bad play.


and then starts getting annoyed and argues that the principals had disturbed the final position which was no longer available for adjudication.

An amusing argument given that everyone could tell the final position was KN v KN. But why anyone would disturb the final position is beyond me.

Bill Gletsos
03-09-2008, 12:44 AM
An amusing argument given that everyone could tell the final position was KN v KN. But why anyone would disturb the final position is beyond me.Socko moved the pieces to prove a mating position was possible.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 12:54 AM
Oh, OK, it was Markkula who was getting annoyed about the pieces being moved. Sorry, I misread it.

Garvinator
03-09-2008, 01:48 AM
[Event "FIDE WCC Women"]
[Site "Nalchik/Russia"]
[Date "2008.09.02"]
[Round "2.2"]
[White "Zatonskih, Anna"]
[Black "Kosintseva, Tatiana"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "E32"]
[WhiteElo "2446"]
[BlackElo "2511"]
[PlyCount "99"]
[EventDate "2008.??.??"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. e4 d5 6. e5 Ne4 7. Bd3 c5 8. Nge2
cxd4 9. Nxd4 Nd7 10. Bf4 Ndc5 11. O-O Nxd3 12. Qxd3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Be7 14. Qg3
Kh8 15. Rfd1 Qa5 16. Nb3 Qa3 17. Bc1 Qa6 18. Bg5 Bxg5 19. Qxg5 Qxc4 20. Qe7 Kg8
21. Rd4 Qe2 22. c4 b6 23. cxd5 exd5 24. Rd2 Qe4 25. Nd4 Ba6 26. Nf3 Bc4 27. Re1
Qg6 28. h3 h6 29. Rd4 Qe6 30. Qh4 f5 31. Rd2 Rae8 32. Qd4 f4 33. Qc3 Qg6 34.
Nd4 Qg5 35. Nf3 Qg6 36. Qa3 Rf7 37. Nd4 Qg5 38. e6 Rf6 39. f3 Rg6 40. Qxa7 Kh7
41. Qxb6 Qh4 42. Rf2 Rxg2+ 43. Kxg2 Qg3+ 44. Kh1 Qxf2 45. Rg1 Be2 46. Rxg7+ Kh8
47. Qc7 Bxf3+ 48. Nxf3 Qxf3+ 49. Rg2 Qxh3+ 50. Kg1
Looks like Anna missed 49. Kh2 which wins and takes them to the rapid playoff. I wonder what Anna would be thinking if she has to go to another sudden death game ;)

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 01:52 AM
Looks like Anna missed 49. Kh2 which wins and takes them to the rapid playoff.

Bad miss by Zatonskih; I guess she failed to see 51...Rg8! Anyway she is now out of business as a result of yesterday's loss and that mistake.

MichaelBaron
03-09-2008, 02:02 AM
One might just as well ask how can one play single-game blitz with no increments to decide a match in a so-called world championship? The situation is absurd, if people play absurd games in that situation who can blame them?


Lets just ask everyone here...who would like to claim win K+N vs. K+N?

Ian Rout
03-09-2008, 09:52 AM
Lets just ask everyone here...who would like to claim win K+N vs. K+N?
A fair few people I can think of.

Socko claimed a win on time within both the rules and the intent of the rules. Admittedly it's ridiculous, but the players can only work with the rules which they are given and which are the same for both sides.

If this had happened in a blitz game in a blitz tournament nobody would have been concerned. It's the fact that it's a blitz game to decide a result in a "normal" tournament that people are getting worked up about (and not unbreasonably).

Should there be two sets of blitz rules, one for blitz tournaments and one for tie-break blitz? Well it's worth thinking about though I don't think it would have much support, and it's too late for this case.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 12:08 PM
Lets just ask everyone here...who would like to claim win K+N vs. K+N?

In a local blitz tournament, even a state blitz title, I would offer the opponent a draw as soon as it arose. If the opponent refused my offer and later lost either on time or by illegal move I'd claim the win.

For instance in a blitz event earlier this year I allowed a draw to an opponent who had queened a pawn to my colour although I would have been entitled to use the queen to win the game. In another game I agreed a draw with KR vs KR when I had about a minute to my opponent's three seconds.

However I have not been in the position of needing to win KN vs KN in a blitz time scramble to avoid elimination in a tournament of the stature of the FWWC. So I really can't say what I would do in that situation. Professional players have to put food on the table; it is hard to blame them for squeezing the most out of the rules.

In a blitz event in 1995 I won a game when my opponent (with KRNPP vs my KN) left his king in check so I claimed a win by illegal move. :owned:

Trent Parker
03-09-2008, 01:23 PM
In a blitz game at mt buller I was down to a solitary blocked pawn and my opponent had mate in three..... but he lost on time!

arosar
03-09-2008, 02:05 PM
Lets just ask everyone here...who would like to claim win K+N vs. K+N?

FMD! I would. If the rules allow me to do it, why the hell not?

You gotta get all these romantic notions out of your head. You're there to extract maximum value from the ever increasing tournament fees these days. And laying down so easily, giving up even a half point, does you no good. You could impact another player you know if you give up easily.

Always pursue your own interest mate. Don't worry about anyone else.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
03-09-2008, 02:29 PM
Should there be two sets of blitz rules, one for blitz tournaments and one for tie-break blitz? Well it's worth thinking about though I don't think it would have much support, and it's too late for this case.
I support using Rapid rules for such tie-breaks.


In a local blitz tournament, even a state blitz title, I would offer the opponent a draw as soon as it arose. If the opponent refused my offer and later lost either on time or by illegal move I'd claim the win.
Me too, unless I knew that my opponent would happily try to win on time against me if the situation were reversed. In a lightning tourney associated with the Dubai Olympiad in 1986, I offered a draw with KN v KR (or was it KNP v KR), and was refused. His flag fell somewhat later when it was definitely KN v KR, so I claimed a win as a mating position was possible, and the arbiter agreed.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 03:01 PM
His flag fell somewhat later when it was definitely KN v KR, so I claimed a win as a mating position was possible, and the arbiter agreed.

Interesting that in your case the arbiter could make a correct decision whereas now 20 years later we have a Chief Arbiter (no less) getting it wrong in a so-called women's world championship.

Garvinator
03-09-2008, 03:11 PM
Interesting that in your case the arbiter could make a correct decision whereas now 20 years later we have a Chief Arbiter (no less) getting it wrong in a so-called women's world championship.
I am wondering how the arbiters were selected?

Trent Parker
03-09-2008, 03:14 PM
I'd personally be against blitz playoffs. Its just not real chess.

Make em play one more game with black getting the win in the event of a draw. Throw a spanner in the works of real chess - not "I can move my arm faster" chess

MichaelBaron
03-09-2008, 03:15 PM
I am wondering how the arbiters were selected?

As always with Fide....through personal connections rather than arbiting skill :)

Vlad
04-09-2008, 02:21 AM
I have to admit that after watching the video and reading the report by Odessky I changed my opinion about this scandal 100%. Monika had moral right to play K+N vs K+N because Sabina was unbelievebly rude.

Not only she was dropping pieces and not adjusting them in her own time, she also did something before the video started that was actually mentioned in the video (in Russian) but was not clear. After reading the report by Odessky it became clear what happened. When he game was middle way (before the video) Sabina dropped a knight. When she adjusted the piece she put it in a different square. When Monika was trying to tell her what she did, Sabina showed her a very rude jest by her hand. Monika was shocked and did not know how to react. As a result the game continued with illegal move being played.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2008, 09:09 PM
Sedina has not only made it to round four but has taken the young Chinese star Yifan Hou to tiebreaks after beating her with white to level the scores last night.

Sedina is currently playing a 4.Qxd4 Sicilian against Hou having won convincingly with the same system yesterday.

Garvinator
07-09-2008, 12:30 PM
Round 4 Match 01

RUS Kosteniuk, Alexsandra 2510

UKR Ushenina, Anna 2476

Round 4 Match 02

IND Koneru, Humpy 2622

CHN Shen, Yang 2445

Round 4 Match 03

ARM Mkrtchian, Lilit 2436

CHN Hou, Yifan 2557

Round 4 Match 04

BUL Stefanova, Antoaneta 2550

SWE Cramling, Pia 2544

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2008, 12:51 AM
Kosteniuk through, winning crushingly with black:

Ushenina - Kosteniuk

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Bg5 c5 7.dxc5 h6 8.Bh4 g5 9.Bg3 Ne4 10.e3 Qa5 11.Be5 0-0 12.Bd3 Nc6 13.Bxe4 Nxe5 14.Bh7+ Kg7 15.Bd3 b6 16.cxb6 d4 17.exd4 Nxd3+ 18.Qxd3 Re8+ 19.Kd1 Bf5 20.Qd2 Bxc3 21.Qxc3 Qxb6 22.Ne2 Rac8 23.Qa3 Rc2 24.Re1 Rd8 25.Qe3 Qxb2 26.Rc1 Re8 0-1

Hou and Koneru are also through and Stefanova just stuffed up a good position with a mistake in time trouble against Cramling who will presumably be the fourth qualifier since she only needs a draw now to advance.

Doesn't look like there will be any tiebreaks tomorrow.

Garvinator
09-09-2008, 01:13 AM
Stefanova just stuffed up a good position with a mistake in time trouble against Cramling who will presumably be the fourth qualifier since she only needs a draw now to advance.

Doesn't look like there will be any tiebreaks tomorrow.
Cramling-Stefanova 1/2-1/2

MichaelBaron
10-09-2008, 02:00 AM
Kosteniuk's super quick victory as black was amazing!

Ivanchuk_Fan
10-09-2008, 08:02 PM
Round 5 Pairings (semi-final):

Kosteniuk(2510)-Cramling(2544)
Hou(2557)-Koneru(2622)

May I ask why the two highest-rated players (and in my opinion, the two strongest players) are playing each other already in the semi-final? As a result of such a match, the second-strongest player will only come =3rd, whereas the 3rd strongest player will score 2nd even if she loses all of her games to Koneru/Hou in the final.

In my opinion, the pairings should have been changed as follows to make the tournament fairer:

Kosteniuk(2510)-Koneru(2622)
Hou(2557)-Cramling(2542)

Perhaps the Russians have set the pairings as above to give Kosteniuk a better chance of winning the title again? :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2008, 08:13 PM
May I ask why the two highest-rated players (and in my opinion, the two strongest players) are playing each other already in the semi-final?

An excellent question and the answer to it exposes yet more FIDE incompetence.

The first part of the answer is that instead of pairing 1-33, 2-34 ... 32-64, FIDE pairs 1-64, 2-63 ... 32-33. Still, you'd expect 1 and 2 to meet in the final if at all (with semi-final pairings 1-4 and 2-3), but the strange truth is that the two highest-rated players are not the two highest-seeded players. Koneru was seeded 2 and Hou was seeded 3 because they seeded the defending "champion" Xu Yuhua 1, even though she was nowhere near the best female player in the world when she won the thing last time and is even less so now (only #20 female in the world on the July FIDE list). This time round Xu Yuhua was eliminated by Matveeva in the second round.

Thus FIDE prioritising its dubiously determined knockout title over more sensible indicators of playing strength has resulted in the perverse outcome of the top two players in the field meeting in the semi-final rather than the final.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2008, 09:14 PM
Perhaps the Russians have set the pairings as above to give Kosteniuk a better chance of winning the title again? :hmm:

She never won it in the first place though from the hoo-ha when she came second you would think that she had. From memory if you wrote the ratio of her press coverage to the winner's down in 8 point it would take up most of the walls of the Large Hadron Collider.

I wonder if she is again defeated in the final, will she call herself "Twice Vice World Champion?"

Adamski
10-09-2008, 10:42 PM
Sedina has not only made it to round four but has taken the young Chinese star Yifan Hou to tiebreaks after beating her with white to level the scores last night.

Sedina is currently playing a 4.Qxd4 Sicilian against Hou having won convincingly with the same system yesterday.Given that Monika Socko won her appeal, and hence the game (on time), why did she not progress instead of Sedina? Was the appeal ruled on too late?

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2008, 11:08 PM
Given that Monika Socko won her appeal, and hence the game (on time), why did she not progress instead of Sedina? Was the appeal ruled on too late?

It was Foisor, not Sedina, who Socko defeated in the disputed match. Socko lost to Hoang Thanh in the second round.

I mentioned Sedina because her progress may interest Australian audiences as she won the 2004-5 Australian Open at Mt Buller.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2008, 11:20 PM
Koneru's current position against Hou is so cramped it looks like one of mine.

Garvinator
11-09-2008, 01:27 AM
Comments from Susan Polgar.

Hou-Koneru1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 c5 13.d5 g6 14.Nf1 Nh5 15.Bh6 Re8 16.b3 Bf8 17.Be3 Nb6 18.a4 bxa4 19.bxa4 Nc4 20.a5 Bc8 21.N3d2 Nxa5? += Hou has just sacrificed a pawn but she has plenty of compensations for the pawn. I think it is a mistake bu Humpy to take the pawn. She would have been better off taking the Bishop on e3.

22.Ra3 Bd7 (White can play 23.Qa1 then Rb1 with a good size advantage)

23.Qa1 Nb7 (Rb1 is needed now to maintain the strong edge. Black has a serious problem with piece placement)

24. Rb1 Qc7 25. Rxa6 Rxa6 26. Qxa6 Nd8 (Now Nc4 gives White a very strong position. Humpy will have a hard time defending this.)

27. Nc4 f5 28.Qb6 Qxb6 29. Nxb6 f4 30. Nxd7 fxe3 31. Nxe3 +- As I have pointed out above, the big mistake for Humpy is taking the pawn on a5. I remember she grabbed a pawn against Stefanova in a recent tournament and lost as well. Hou now has a pawn up and big advantage.

31...Bh6?! (Now g4 and Black has a problem finding squares for the Knight. If Ng7 then Nf6)

32.g4 Re7 33. Ba4 Nf4 34. Rb8 Hou has taken advantage of Humpy's mistake perfectly! This game is almost over.

34...Kg7 35.Rxd8 Rf7 White is now up by a whole piece!

36.Nd1?! (This is the first inaccuracy by Hou. 36.Nc4 would have been much stronger. White is still better but Black has some counter chances now.)

36...Nxh3+ 37.Kg2 Nf4+ 38.Kf1 Bg5 +- 39.Rb8 Nd3 White can start to peel of the d6 pawn with Rb6. What makes matters worse is Humpy is in serious time pressure.

40.Rb6 Rf4 +- 41.Bb5 Nxf2 42. Nxf2 Bh4 43. Rxd6 Rxf2+ 44. Kg1 Rf4 45. Nxe5 Rxe4 +- 46. Rd7+ Kg8 47. Nf3 Rxg4+ 48. Kf1 Bf6 49. Rc7 Humpy is trying the best she could to create counter play. However, being a piece up and having a strong pawn on d5, it does look good for Hou.

49...g5 50.Rxc5 Rf4 51.Kg2 g4 + - White can simply retreat the Knight to d1 and Black has not much to look forward to.

52.Nd4 h5 53.Rc8+ Kf7 54. d6 h4 55. Be8+ 1-0 Well played game by the young Hou to take advantage of Humpy's lone error.

Garvinator
11-09-2008, 01:29 AM
GM Kosteniuk - GM Cramling

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. e5 Ne4 6. Bd3 Bb4 7. Bd2 Nxd2 8.Qxd2 f6 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Qxc3 fxe5 11. dxe5 Qe7 12. h4 Bd7 13. b4 a6 14. h5 O-O-O 15. Qd2 Kb8 16. c3 Rdf8 17. Qe3 Na7 18. a4 c5 19. bxc5 Rc8 20. Rb1 Qxc5 21.Qxc5 Rxc5 22. Bxa6 Rc7 23. Kd2 Bxa4 24. Rb4 Bd7 25. Rhb1 Bc8 26. Nd4 Re8 27. f4 Ree7 28. Rb6 h6 29. g3 Re8 30. Rd6 Ree7 31. Bf1 Bd7 32. Bh3 Nc8 33. Bxe6 Nxd6 34. exd6 Bxe6 35. dxe7 Bd7 36. Nf5 White wins 1-0

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 01:50 PM
Kosteniuk is through after forcing a repetition in a favourable position against Cramling.

Hou should have been through but made a massive blunder, so Koneru and Hou will play tiebreaks tonight:

Koneru-Hou

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 g6 6.Nc2 Bg7 7.e4 d6 8.Be2 0-0 9.0-0 Be6 10.b3 a6 11.Rb1 Rb8 12.Bb2 Qa5 13.b4 Qd8 14.f4 b5 15.cxb5 axb5 16.Kh1 Qd7 17.Qd2 Rfd8 18.Ne3 d5 19.exd5 Nxd5 20.Nexd5 Bxd5 21.Bxb5 Qb7 22.Nxd5 Qxb5 23.Bxg7 Rxd5 24.Qc3 Rd3 25.Qa1 f6 26.a4 Qd5 27.Bh6 Rxb4 28.Rxb4 Nxb4 29.f5 g5 30.Qc1 Nc6 31.a5 Rd2 32.Rg1 Nxa5?? Black was fine here but neglects white's threats and walks into a forced mate 33.Qc8+ Qd8 34.Qe6+ Kh8 35.Qf7 Qg8 36.Qxe7 1-0

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 10:59 PM
Koneru's turn to walk into a mating net in the first rapid playoff game:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 g6 15.b3 Bg7 16.d5 Rc8 17.Be3 c6 18.c4 Nb6 19.Rb1 Qc7 20.dxc6 Bxc6 21.Bxb6 Qxb6 22.Qxd6 Rcd8 23.Qb4 Bf8 24.Qc3 Bc5 25.Re2 b4 26.Qe1 Kg7 27.Rd1 Rxd1 28.Qxd1 Rd8 29.Qc1 Nd7 30.Qg5 f6 31.Qg4 Kf7 32.Rd2 Nf8 33.Rxd8 Qxd8 34.Ne1 Ne6 35.Nd3 Be7 36.Qd1 Qd4 37.Nc1 Qb6 38.Nf1 Bc5 39.Nd3 Bd4 40.Qe1 a5 41.Ng3 Kg7 42.Bd1 Bc3 43.Qe2 Qb7 44.Qg4 Qd7 45.Be2 Kf7 46.h4 h5 47.Qf3 Ke7 48.Qe3 Qd4 49.Qh6 Bxe4 50.Qh7+ Kd6?? wrong square, e8 would have been fine 51.c5+! Nxc5 52.Nxc5 Kd5 1-0

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 11:22 PM
Hou blundered a piece in the second game so they are about to go to blitz once Koneru wins this one.

Kevin Bonham
13-09-2008, 12:31 AM
Hou won the blitz 2-0, rest day tomorrow, 4-game final Kosteniuk vs Hou starts Sunday.

Bill Gletsos
15-09-2008, 01:01 AM
Hou - Kosteniuk
Game 1

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. a3 d6 9. c3 Bg4 10. d3 Na5 11. Bc2 c5 12. h3 Bd7 13. d4 Qc7 14. d5 c4 15. Nbd2 Nb7 16. Nf1 Nc5 17. g4 h5 18. N3h2 hxg4 19. hxg4 Qc8 20. f3 Nh7 21. Ng3 Bg5 22. Nf5 Qd8 23. Kg2 g6 24. Ng3 Kg7 25. Rh1 Rh8 26. Nhf1 Qf6 27. Be3 Bxe3 28. Nxe3 Ng5 29. Qe2 Rag8 30. Raf1 Qf4 31. Rxh8 Rxh8 32. Rh1 Rxh1 33. Nxh1 Nd3 34. Bxd3 cxd3 35. Qf2 d2 36. Ng3 Nxf3 37. Qxf3 Bxg4 38. Qf2 d1=Q 39. Nxd1 Bxd1 40. Qe1 Bf3+ 41. Kg1 f5 42. exf5 gxf5 43. Qf2 Kg6 44. b3 e4 45. c4 bxc4 46. bxc4 Qg5 47. c5 f4 48. cxd6 fxg3 0-1

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2008, 12:04 PM
Apparently the line played by Hou in that game is dodgy but it was a very convincing win by Kosteniuk all the same.

Dougy
15-09-2008, 04:44 PM
中国加油!侯逸凡加油!

Ivanchuk_Fan
15-09-2008, 05:01 PM
9.h3 looks like an improvement over 9.c3, preventing ...Bg4 as in the 8.c3 d6 9.h3 variation. Still, 9...Na5 10.Ba2 c5 looks okay for Black, as b4 can always be met by ...Nc6.

Garvinator
15-09-2008, 11:57 PM
Hou is under the pump time wise, 7 moves to make and only 4 mins to do so.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 12:09 AM
Hou is under the pump time wise, 7 moves to make and only 4 mins to do so.

Pawn down as well now, not looking good for her.

Garvinator
16-09-2008, 01:11 AM
Pawn down as well now, not looking good for her.
Rybka is now claiming draw even though Kosteniuk is three pawns up in this position:
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 cxd4 5. exd5 Qxd5 6. Bc4 Qd6 7. Qe2 Nf6 8.
Nb3 Nc6 9. Bg5 Qb4+ 10. Bd2 Qb6 11. O-O-O Bd7 12. Bg5 h6 13. Bh4 Bc5 14. Kb1
O-O-O 15. Bg3 Nh5 16. Be5 f6 17. Nxc5 Qxc5 18. Bxd4 Nxd4 19. Rxd4 e5 20. Rd5
Qc7 21. g3 g5 22. Rhd1 Ng7 23. Nd2 Bc6 24. Rd3 Rxd3 25. Bxd3 f5 26. f3 Re8 27.
Re1 h5 28. Qe3 g4 29. fxg4 e4 30. Be2 hxg4 31. Qxa7 b6 32. Qa3 Rd8 33. Qb4 Ne6
34. Nc4 b5 35. Ne3 Nd4 36. c4 Qd6 37. Qxd6 Rxd6 38. cxb5 Nxe2 39. bxc6 Nd4 40.
Rf1 Kc7 41. Nxf5 Nxf5 42. Rxf5 Kxc6 43. Re5 Rd4 44. Kc1 Kd6 45. Re8 Kd7 46. Rf8
Ke6 47. Rf4 Ke5 48. Rxg4 Rd8

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 01:37 AM
If Kosteniuk had seen 39.Nxf5 I doubt this would have got this far, as it is it's an amazing draw if Hou pulls it off (but she is still one game down.)

Bill Gletsos
16-09-2008, 01:40 AM
If Kosteniuk had seen 39.Nxf5 I doubt this would have got this far, as it is it's an amazing draw if Hou pulls it off (but she is still one game down.)40. Rd1 was winning. Also 44. Kc2 instead of Kc1 was winning.

Denis_Jessop
16-09-2008, 08:16 PM
When the heat's on does it matter Hou Yi Fan?

DJ

Garvinator
17-09-2008, 01:37 AM
Is Nalchik going to become known as the miracle land?

Susan Polgar has just commented that Hou may be able to hold another impossible position.

[White "Hou, Yifan"]
[Black "Kosteniuk, Alexandra"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. h3
Bb7 9. d3 d5 10. exd5 Nxd5 11. Nxe5 Nd4 12. Nd2 Re8 13. c3 Nxb3 14. Nxb3 c5 15.
Qh5 g6 16. Qf3 f6 17. Nxg6 hxg6 18. c4 Qd7 19. cxd5 Bxd5 20. Qg3 g5 21. Be3
Rac8 22. Qg4 Qxg4 23. hxg4 Bd6 24. Rec1 Kf7 25. Nd2 Be5 26. Rc2 Be6 27. Ne4 c4
28. dxc4 Rxc4 29. Rxc4 bxc4 30. Rd1 Rb8 31. b3 cxb3 32. axb3 Rxb3 33. Bd4 Bxg4
34. f3 Bxd4+ 35. Rxd4 Be6 36. Rd6 a5 37. Nc5 Rb1+ 38. Kf2 Bf5 39. Ra6 Rb5 40.
Ne4 Bxe4 41. fxe4 Rb2+ 42. Kf3 Ra2 43. Kg3 a4 44. Kf3 a3 45. Kg3 Ra1 46. Kh2 a2
47. Kg3 Ke7 48. Kh2 Kd7 49. Kg3 Kc7 50. Kh2 Kb7 51. Ra3 Kb6 52. Ra8 Kb5 53.
Rb8+ Kc4 54. Ra8 Kd4 55. Ra4+ Kd3 56. Kg3 Ke3 57. Kh2 Kf4 58. e5+ Kxe5 59. g4
Kd5 60. Kg2 Kc5 61. Ra8 Kb4 62. Ra6 Kc4 63. Ra3 Kd4 64. Ra6 Ke5

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2008, 09:01 PM
Indeed she did hold it (drawn in 72). Hou has done very well to still be in this match given that she has been outplayed in every game and would have lost game 2 had Kosteniuk thought for longer before the time control (Kosteniuk still had 25 mins to very little after her inaccurate 39th). However Hou needs to win with black tonight or it is all over.

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2008, 01:48 AM
Game 4.

Kosteniuk,Alexandra (2510) - Hou,Yifan (2557) [B85]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 a6 9.a4 0-0 10.f4 Qc7 11.Kh1 Bd7 12.Nb3 b6 13.Qe1 Bc8 14.Qg3 Bb7 15.f5 Kh8 16.Rad1 Rae8 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Qh3 Bd8 19.Nd4 Nxd4 20.Rxd4 e5 21.Rc4 Qb8 22.Rd1 b5 23.axb5 axb5 24.Nxb5 Nxe4 25.Bd3 Nf6 26.Rh4 e4 27.Be2 Bc8 28.Qg3 Ba6 29.c4 Bxb5 30.cxb5 Bb6 31.Bf4 Qa7 32.Bxd6 Bf2 33.Qf4 Nd5 34.Qc1 Rc8 35.Qd2 Rfd8 36.Rxh7+ Kxh7 37.Qxd5 Qe3 38.Bg4 Ra8 39.Qe6 Kh8 40.Qe7 Qh6 41.h3 Qg6 42.Qe5 Bb6 43.Bh5 Qh6 44.Bg4 e3 45.Qe4 Qf6 46.Rd5 Ra1+ 47.Kh2 Qxd6+ 48.Rxd6 Bc7 49.Qf5 Bxd6+ 50.g3 Kg8 51.Qd5+ Kf8 52.Qf5+ Ke7 53.Qe6+ Kf8 54.Qf5+ Kg8 55.Qd5+ Kf8 56.Qf5+ ½-½

Quite an exciting game. Again Kosteniuk could have done more damage just before the time control but failed to do so. At the end she could have won quite easily and made no attempt to do so, quickly playing whatever check she could find to force a draw although she had 15+ mins on her clock while Hou was just about surfing the increment. I wonder if Kosteniuk knew it was won and was being sporting or simply couldn't be bothered thinking about it anymore.

Although Kosteniuk has not made the most of her opportunities in the final, she clearly deserved to win the event in my view, having gone through undefeated with some convincing wins and strong play with the black pieces in several games. That Hou is mega-talented goes without saying but in this event I suspect the pressure affected her performance.

Garvinator
20-09-2008, 01:27 AM
Kevin, I think I have just made your day ;) or is that week?

From ninemsn:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634470/swimsuit-model-crowned-queen-of-chess

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Adamski
20-09-2008, 10:20 AM
Kevin, I think I have just made your day ;) or is that week?

From ninemsn:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634470/swimsuit-model-crowned-queen-of-chess

:lol: :lol: :lol:Jono, did you see this sentence in the Ninemsn article: "At 14, she became the youngest ever female Grandmaster, which was attributed to her training regime of playing games blindfolded."

I also noted how much older her husband was than her!

Kevin Bonham
20-09-2008, 02:04 PM
Kevin, I think I have just made your day ;) or is that week?

From ninemsn:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/634470/swimsuit-model-crowned-queen-of-chess

:lol: :lol: :lol:

To be expected. :rolleyes:

Factual errors:

* age wrong, albeit not by much (she is 24 not 23)
* "At 14, she became the youngest ever female Grandmaster," - someone seems not to have realised that there is a difference between being a WGM and being a GM who is female. (Also if she was the youngest ever WGM at the time - is this true? - then this record has been beaten since.)
* European champion at age 17 - wrong, she was 20 and it was only the European women's championship. (Article appears to have ripped off this one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2984850/Glamorous-Russian-swimsuit-model-wins-Womens-World-Chess-Championship.html) which makes some of the same mistakes but at least gets that bit right.)

Also, how many years old is that photo?

Denis_Jessop
20-09-2008, 08:28 PM
To be expected. :rolleyes:

Factual errors:

* age wrong, albeit not by much (she is 24 not 23)
* "At 14, she became the youngest ever female Grandmaster," - someone seems not to have realised that there is a difference between being a WGM and being a GM who is female. (Also if she was the youngest ever WGM at the time - is this true? - then this record has been beaten since.)
* European champion at age 17 - wrong, she was 20 and it was only the European women's championship. (Article appears to have ripped off this one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2984850/Glamorous-Russian-swimsuit-model-wins-Womens-World-Chess-Championship.html) which makes some of the same mistakes but at least gets that bit right.)

Also, how many years old is that photo?

The photo was taken in 2003. Eons ago in the life of a 24yo :)

DJ