A controversial end to the first round of the Women's World Championship Knockout, with the result of the sudden death game between Monika Socko and Sabina-Francesca Foisor being decided by the appeals committee. This was an "Armageddon" playoff, with Black (Foisor) advancing to the next round if the game was drawn. The game reached a K+NvK+N ending (with no pawns) and Foisor claimed a draw (although she didn't stop the clock). After she lost on time the arbiter declared the game drawn. Socko then appealed the result, and the game was awarded to her by this committee.
The appeal was upheld on Article 9.6 which reads "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."
As it is possible to construct a mate with K+N v K+N (see diagram) the appeals committee that the result be a win for White. The full judgement can be read here.
Now I've always thought that this was a terribly worded rule, precisely because of situations like this. When I have been confronted in situations like this when directing tournaments (eg player with K+NvK+Q+3P claims a win and argues that the player may underpromote and build a self mate), I usually roll my eyes, declare it a draw, but suggest to the player they can appeal the result "if they want to win that badly".
Obviously Socko did want to win the game "that badly", although given the absurdity of just moving knights back and forth while waiting for a win on time is not a win I'd be proud of.
But was the decision of the appeals committee wrong? Clearly not according to the rules. Should the rule be rewritten? Certainly yes, but almost certainly not at the upcoming FIDE Congress, as their are no proposed changes to this rule.
And one final question. What would have happened if the arbiter had declared the game drawn before either flag had fallen?
(Thanks to Andrey Bliznyuk for the links on this)
6 comments:
I really don't think it's ethical for an arbiter to apply pressure, however subtle, against a player to influence him/her not claim a win according to the rules.
but...there is always the KNIGHT FORK!
GameKnot doesn't recognise draw claims either, at least not in their blitz format...I once played a game reduced to a King each, and my opponent refused the draw offer as he was ahead on time.
I abandoned the game thinking that some people need to get a life. There was absolutely nothing riding on the outcome.
Yeah, well gameknot's blitz service is only really a gimmick.
Anyway, apparently there is a section 10.2 in some official rulebook which states that a player with less than two minutes on the clock may stop the clock and appeal to the arbiter that his opponent is making no effort to or cannot win the game, but is only playing for a time-out win. If the arbiter agrees that this is the case, the game will be awarded as a draw.
10.2 does not apply in blitz.
I didn't know that, but I was assuming that it didn't apply to blitz anyway - time outs are too important to blitz
Post a Comment