World Cup Controversies/"Controversies"
Here are some topics for discussion, all involving the ongoing 2015 World Cup.
(1) Castlegate. In the final game of the tiebreaks between Hikaru Nakamura and Ian Nepomniachtchi, Nakamura was guilty of a double no-no - one intentional and one not. The first was castling with two hands, and the second was that he apparently touched the rook first by an almost unnoticeable fraction of a second. (I'll ignore the second point in what follows.) While there is no evidence to think that this made the slightest difference in terms of the outcome of the game, and Nepomniachtchi didn't seem to react to it when it happened, what Nakamura did was against the rules.
After the game, however, he filed a protest, aiming to have his opponent forfeited for his action. The appeals committee agreed that what Nakamura did was wrong, but denied that Nepomniachtchi could make a case since he didn't do anything at the time of the infraction. Since Nepomniachtchi claimed that Nakamura castled in this illegal way through the tiebreaks, why didn't he protest earlier? (In fact, Nakamura has been doing this in blitz for many years, but I suspect he won't do it any more, at least not in any official competitions.) The timing of the complaint looks like a last ditch effort to achieve by a technicality what he couldn't do over the board.
That said, it's surprising that Nakamura didn't know better, and it's even more surprising that the arbiters never did a thing about it. (Maybe they just didn't know the rule?) Nepomniachtchi was justifiably upset about that. Nepomniachtchi also complained about Nakamura's adjusting pieces on the squares without explicitly j'adoubing them. I've seen many players do that in blitz - including Carlsen, I think - and it's really pretty obvious that they are adjusting the piece without any intention of moving it, e.g. by nudging it with their fingertip or even their fingernail. There's more on the story here and here (N.B. there's a bit of crass language at the second link).
(2) Partial Delays. Each day, at least during the classical stages of each round, a certain number of games, chosen at random, weren't shown live but only on a 15-minute delay. This is a bit annoying for the spectators and for the commentators as well, who often simply ignored the directive and had the cameras show a bit of the board. I know they've been doing this for years at Dortmund, but can someone please explain to me how this is supposed to prevent cheating? I guess the fantasy is that there's a guy watching in the hotel, and he communicates via some sort of earpiece to a spectator, who in turn finds some way of signaling the player (by coughing, standing in a certain location - whatever). There must be better ways to handle the problem than this: signal-jamming, arranging the lights so the audience can't be seen, going Fischer-plus and getting rid of the live audience altogether, putting the players in a glass room with one-way visibility, etc. Also, on the Dortmund model, what's to stop the confederate from leaving the playing hall and relaying the moves to the computer guy in the room?
Anyway, the World Cup idea of doing the delay with approximately five games in rounds 2 and 3 (I forget the figure for round 1) strikes me as nearly pointless. The overwhelming majority of potential cheaters can still cheat, if that's what they are inclined to do; if anything, it is the higher-rated players on the non-delayed boards who are at a potential competitive disadvantage thanks to this practice.
(3) Miroshnichenko vs. Sutovsky. Emil Sutovsky's commentary stint ended with the round 3 tiebreaks, but the nine days he worked with Evgeny Miroshnichenko were often very uncomfortable to watch, primarily due to "Miro". Maybe Sutovsky did something to really bother him once upon a time, but it was often unpleasant to watch as Miroshnichenko would direct all sorts of snide and sarcastic remarks at Sutovsky. Maybe it was supposed to come across as good-natured ribbing, but most of the time it seemed like passive-aggressive sniping. It abated somewhat the last few days, perhaps because quite a few other people noticed it and they were told by the organizers to knock it off. Is there more to the story - or maybe, less to it?
Comment away.
Reader Comments (12)
My experience is that the best blitz players like Nakamura often push the edges of the rules, not moving pieces to the centre of the square, then adjusting them on opponents time , moving before opponent has pressed the clock etc, I think moving your hand towards a piece causes a reaction from the opponent so they should be clear they are going to J'adoube as or before they reach out.
Are there observers at each board, should they not have called Nakamura for Two handed castling before? I had not realised but It is clearly against rule 4.1 all moves with same hand. Nepo should have complained when it first happened, perhaps he was unsure of the rule. I wonder whether Nakamura used Two handed castling to save a slit second or as a psychological ploy? If Nepo had complained immediately after Naks,s castling a disqualification would seem a bit harsh but maybe it would not be unreasonable to give Nepo the option to restart th game.
The Nepo thing is much ado about nothing. Naka needs to stop doing the two hand castling, but Nepo complaining about such a triviality after he lost fair and square doesn't place him in any sort of good light. I watched the vid and I saw nothing to indicate that the castling bothered Nepo in the slightest. I'm guessing that some other player brought it to his attention after the game. Take your loss and bring it to the arbiter in game if it happens again. I have no favoritism to either of these players, this was just silly.
On the castling thing, I saw that Ali Nihat Yazici (or rather YAZICI, as he seems to sign himself whenever he puts anything on the internet), the head of the Turkish chess federation, organizer of quite a few high-profile tournaments, etc. (head of the European Chess Union also, I think?) - anyway, a highly-credentialed official - was all up in arms about the fact that Nakamura dared to castle with both hands, shrieking about how this USCF rule is not chess, how he was so scandalized that the USCF didn't follow FIDE rules, etc. I thought his reaction quite ridiculous, though not entirely devoid of point.
However, I mention it because it gets me wondering whether there might be some considerable number of people abroad who think in some measure as he does, to the effect that they might say to themselves "Wow, I didn't know they allowed XYZ in the USA". We must admit, I think, that the vast, vast majority of us in the U. S. never come in direct contact with the FIDE Laws of Chess - we may know they exist and they may get put in an appendix to the USCF Official Rules handbook, but there are relatively few occasions when we're actually required to study or abide by them, either as players or as TDs. (I'm only a Local TD, so maybe I should hold my fire on the latter point. Obviously, arbiters at a high enough level need to be well informed about the Laws.)
Now, Dennis, you've obviously played in a number of events governed the FIDE Laws, and it's not that the FIDE vs USCF rules are that different, but there are some noticeable differences of which even an ignoramus like me is aware, e.g. the differing penalties for making illegal moves. But is it possible that if more Europeans were familiar with how we do things over here, that they would be in any measure disturbed by those discrepancies? Does that happen in your experience, players from abroad getting surprised by something in the rules? If it does, maybe there's some reason for Yazici's reaction other than... I don't know what, too much coffee or whatever.
[DM: The only two differences I've seen merit discussion in the events I've been in are these: First, in FIDE there's zero tolerance for a phone going off, while USCF goes warning-penalty and only then forfeit. Second, they hold or at least held different policies about writing a move down before playing it. FIDE has made it illegal, while I think the USCF still permits it. (I don't do it myself, so it was never an issue for me, and if my opponent wants to broadcast his intentions beforehand I'm not going to stop him.)]
1) Agree completely with DM on Castlegate. Hikaru should know better, but it's really a technicality and Nepo's untimely appeal was correctly denied.
2) Don't really care about the transmission delay. Seems more sensible when applied to all games in an open event rather than select games in a World Cup, but cheating is a real problem and I don't mind some experimentation in efforts to deter it, even if the odd experiment here or there seems pointless.
3) Yes, Miroshnichenko and Sutovsky obviously don't like each other. I wouldn't put it all on Miro, though. Sutovsky strikes me as a rather impulsive and difficult character (I'm thinking, for instance, of his bizarre overreaction to a stray remark made by Nigel Short while commentating on a Mickey Adams game a few years back). My impression of the commentary was that Miro often got annoyed by Sutovsky's impatient and over-the-top evaluations ("White is totally winning!") and decided to toy snidely with him ("Totally winning? Really?"). But Miro turned me off with his sexist comments before the last Women's World Cup (or world championship KO, or whatever FIDE calls it). They should replace both of them, in my opinion.
1) Two-handed castling was just the obvious rule violation needed for a formal protest, but Nepomniachtchi was clearly annoyed by Nakamura's overall behavior during the blitz games. It probably affected Nepo's concentration, and thus could have made a slight but crucial difference about the result. My take is: Nepomniachtchi didn't really believe that his protest would/could succeed, but wanted to make this point in public - in a formal way, rather than just via Twitter and interviews.
The rest is a matter of opinion (and preference for one of the players), e.g. Jobava on Facebook (keeping his typos): "First, of course Jan should be in next round, no question about that( only mistake what he made, that didnt stop the clock and don't gave protest that moment). Second, Nakamura is dirty player, try tu use every chance to win the batlle (he forgets that this isn't real war and first of all chess was and I still hope gentelmen's game, but, unfortunately many players forget this...) Appeal commetee is absolutely impotent organ, ..." [then the language becomes too foul for Dennis' blog]
2) The point of randomly selecting a few games could be: IF a player is under suspicion, his board can be "randomly selected" - i.e. not at random, but he and the general audience won't know. It only works if the overall selection is purely random, also including top matches. BTW I don't mean to imply at all that Dominguez - Perez Ponsa in round 1.2, a near-upset, was non-randomly selected.
I don't think a "confederate" watching in the playing hall could really see the position on the board. At least in Wijk aan Zee it's tricky for the boards close to the audience (B group) and impossible for the A group. Signal jamming might be illegal, or might interfer with other activities in the hotel. Overall, the anti-cheating measures might be in the spirit of "do something for the sake of doing something" and making statements. Again, the rest (and also my previous sentence) is a matter of opinion.
3) I watched very little of the live commentary and didn't notice anything questionable or going too far, but that's once again a matter of opinion - my take is it was part of the 'show' they tried to produce. Sutovsky wrote on Facebook "we are like fire and ice" - probably referring to himself, the dynamic attacking player, as fire, arguably not exactly a compliment to Miroshnichenko. But if they disliked each other, they wouldn't have agreed to work together in the first place!? My overall verdict: There is less to the story.
[DM: I can think of $ome rea$on$ why they might work together.]
Perhaps another factor is that prior to 1st July 2014, the laws were ambiguous regarding using two hands for castling. Article 4.1 still said Each move must be made with one hand only. However 4.4.c.said intending to castle, touches the king or king and rook at the same time... implying two hands could be used to castle. In the latest edition of the laws the wording has been changed to be consistent with 4.1
I for one was not aware of this particular change, and maybe it had passed by Naka as well. Nevertheless, it is part of the job for any professional chess player or sports person to know the laws of their sport.
Hi Dennis,
Can you clarify (from Philip's post): is two-handed castling actually permitted under USCF rules?
[DM: I don't have the latest edition of the USCF rulebook, and haven't run across any two-handed castlers recently. One thing I'll note is that there are some different rules for blitz chess than for classical, though I don't know if that is among them. However, at least at one point, it was permissible by the USCF rules - though somewhat frowned upon - to castle even moving the rook first.]
I ask because, personally (as an Australian), castling with two hands kind of gets my 'chess hackles' up. It seems like a deliberate attempt to cheat by saving time, in the same way as if you hit the clock with one hand while moving a piece with the other. A step down from breaching the touch-move rule, perhaps, but on the same path.
Castling with one hand, moving the king first, is a rule that was drummed into me early on. It would be unthinkable for me to castle two-handed in any tournament (let alone the World Cup!), and it would certainly grate on me if my opponent did it in a serious blitz game (although I'm not sure at what point I would complain, or just have a quiet word to them between games). I can certainly sympathise with Nepo, even though it may not 'look' like it bothered him at the time.
To me, (i) Nakamura is first at fault, and should not have done it and put everyone else in the awkward position of having to either formally object or overlook a blatant rule breach, (ii) the arbiters were right there and should have pulled him up, not left it up to Nepo, and (iii) Nepo needed to object during (not after) the match, if he wanted the rule breach to actually affect the outcome of the match. However, he really shouldn't have been put in that position.
Having said that, if the USCF permits two-handed castling, and it is commonplace in the US, then I can see why US readers would be more understanding of Nakamura's castling technique, and think this was much ado about nothing.
A followup to Steve's question: US Chess Federation Official Rules of Chess, 6th Edition, page 310 in the chapter on blitz chess rules:
So as of early 2014, the rule is now explicit, at least for USCF rated blitz games: one hand only, no exceptions. This was left obscure in the previous edition of the rulebook.
On #3, I looked a many hours of video, and I agree they don't work together well. It's a pity, because Sutovsky's comments were often enlightening and his flashy attacks are a joy to watch, while Miro caters well to the not-so-strong amateur audience. But Miro made it too personal and it was uncomfortable to watch. I suspect he is just worried that Sutovsky may steal his job as a regular FIDE commentator, using his ACP influence...
I still disagree about #3. There are two conceivable reasons why Miro and Sutovsky acted the way they did: they dislike each other, or they like each other - I am leaning towards the latter. One commentary model is two GMs of about equal strength, but with different styles and approaches to chess. The other model is what we have now: a GM and a much weaker player (not sure if ten Geuzendam actually plays chess himself), whose main role is to ask comprehension questions and/or "translate" remarks by the GM for a weaker audience. As a relatively strong amateur player (1900ish, up to 2100+ in the past) I prefer the first model.
The suggestion that Sutovsky might (try to) use "ACP influence" to take over Miroshnichenko's regular role seems odd to me. ACP and FIDE are different organizations, ACP is often critical of FIDE while willing to work together. At the World Cup, Sutovsky was probably asked/approached/selected because he is originally from Azerbaijan and still has ties with Azerbaijan. For example, he plays board 1 for Odlar Yurdu at the European Club Cup - their second team besides the SOCAR star team with hired foreign players. The other Odlar Yurdu players are mostly young talents, the idea is to prepare them for the national team (info I have from Sutovsky himself).
[DM: I don't rule out the possibility that it was good-natured, but much (not all) of the time it seemed much edgier and as if Miro was genuinely irritated and annoyed by Sutovsky. Also against the thesis that they liked each other was the fact that Sutovsky never responded in kind, but just acted as if nothing had happened.
Regarding Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam, he's not a professional player and I didn't spot a rating for him, but if you do a websearch for him you can find a simul game he played against Karpov. It isn't fantastic, but it isn't a disaster either.]
Regarding #3, I think the problem is that neither of them speaks good English, so they're not able to articulate their remarks in a more subtle manner. We can't tell if they're pretending to be arguing, because it looks and sounds serious, but maybe they just don't know any better way to say what they'd like to say. And if they really hate each other, they can't hide it because of their poor English speaking skills. Either way,it ends up being served to the worldwide audience. I'd rather have native English commentators, or Svidler, but he's still playing!
I couldn't disagree more re: the relationship between Miroshnichenko and Sutovsky. I won't debate the reason for apparent friction, but I believe their evaluations of the chess not only aren't hurt but very sharpened by it. I enjoyed that much more than the chess/anecdotes contributed by Geuzendam. He clearly has a feel for chess, though, he likely plays(ed) at a strong club level.
[DM: I'm with you in thinking that it was valuable to have two very strong players with different styles challenging each other. It was the way in which those differences took on a personal tinge that seemed problematic to me.]