By now most of you will have heard about the incident in round 6 of the Candidates Tournament between Lev Aronian and Hikaru Nakamura, over a touched king (If not, here is chess.com's coverage)
What I am a little surprised about are the somewhat divergent opinions that this case has caused. While I get that there will always be Nakamura fan boys (just as their are Carlsen or So fan boys), Lev Aronian seems to have copped criticism for suggesting that he was winning the position anyway. Emil Sutovsky criticised him for this, describing the claim as 'complete rubbish'. Maxime Vachier-Lagrave later showed analysis that indicated that Nakamura could have drawn it (without this, or any other mistakes), which emboldened some who were critical of Aronian.
On the other hand Ian Nepomniatchi stood up for Aronian, making reference to issue with Nakamura's illegal two handed castling in the World Cup. And at least some strong street chess players argued that given the position on the board, 'winning' was a perfectly acceptable claim by Aronian.
As for my 2 cents, possibly Aronian may have chosen his words to deflect any criticism of enforcing the touch move rule on Nakamrua (which would have been quite unwarranted), and could have said 'should be winning', but overall, the expression 'winning' has been used by other players in positions with far less winning chances, and so he was entitled to use it.
9 comments:
What about Naka for trying to pull a swifty by saying 'j'adoube'?
At the press conference Aronian gave the winning method. Play h5, move the king back and black can't prevent f5, which he said was winning. It wasn't entirely convincing though...
AO
The position is to me (as an rook ending expert if I do claim) so obviously not winning, I would at first tend to agree with Sutovsky. But there's a 1999 Armenian championship game (Lputian-Sargissian) with the same pawns (almost the same position) that Black fumbled around and lost, so that's probably where Aronian got the idea from. His mistake is just thinking that f5 "wins on the spot", when it simply doesn't. Nothing wrong with being confused, but it seems to have spiralled much beyond that on social media. Not everyone keeps a perfect databank of which pawn configurations are wins in rook endings. Endgame boffins rated in the 2600s with an extra decade of experience (Sutovsky, Krasenkow, also noting they analyze games more in their "old age" than Aronian does, I'd expect) are probably more likely to "get it right" than a 2800 with so many other things crammed in his head.
Naka should get a fide temp ban
Nakamura is also re-stirring the zero tolerance pot. “I think all the rules should be followed uniformly, and that includes the zero-tolerance rule which I can say is not enforced uniformly.” I guess it was just a "(shrug) let FIDE do what they want", until some other rules issue came up.
This is exactly why I was saying that FIDE should take it seriously back in Round 3, and even consult (Swiss) legal counsel on the contractual language employed. Snowball effects are always a disaster, as you can survive one rules faux pas, but never more than that without serious questions of fairness arising. Better to get it right, in the original.
PS. Which is the round when the doping control will be exercised?
PPS. 10% for one post-game conference in a 14-game tournament is much on the heavy side, but I'd guess it's not sufficiently "unconscionable" to be struck out by a court (as a leonine clause). Nakamura was fined his prize money back in Mainz rapids 2009 for skipping the closing ceremony after losing in the last 2 rounds, but I think he actually told them he needed to go walk it off, they told him what the penalty would be (he was not in the top money), and he just shrugged and left.
Sorry to ask a dumb question, but why is zero tolerance a forfeit instead of a fine? Wouldn't that make a lot more sense at the pro level, where fans want to see a game regardless?
Excellent question Heath, and I never expect FIDE to come up with a good answer. The same is true for not shaking hands. Why make these "forfeiture" issues instead of ethics/fines? The FWCM rules have "suits are required", but if (say) Carlsen wears something else, do they forfeit him, or fine him? Which is more logical?
PS. Historically for zero tolerance, I think it was an incident in a 25-minute game where someone thought there opponent was not going to show up, then after 24:30 they did, and the other guy (Short?) was so disconcerted that played horribly and lost. Sort of like bridge players appealing when they accept a bum claim, in that seeing all the cards confused them.
Are there any rules about getting information from other games in progress? It seems like a horrid loophole. Topalov was watching Nakamura's game and both played Qe7 in a similar position.
Does FIDE even sign the contracts? This was a point that Lautier made back with the ACP.
The protection of professional chess players' rights
By "rights" we mean, in the first place, the strict application of signed contracts between players and organizers. The players are asked to sign their copies of the contract and then never receive FIDE's copy of the contract with the organization's signature on it. In case of breach of contract from the part of FIDE, the players have no legal recourse, whereas if a player doesn't comply with the terms of the contract, FIDE can comfortably sign the contract before assigning the player in court.
Post a Comment