Look at Carlsen's body language as Savchenko
gently reminds him of the rules of fair play!
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game9242703.html
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Carlsen vs. Savchenko, 2010
World Blitz Championship - Round 16.1
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game9242703.html
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game9242703.html
Carlsen vs Kosteniuk, 2009
World Blitz Chess Championship - Round 4
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game6801609.html
Carlsen's hand is quicker than the eye. Even slow motion was not good
enough to catch him but super slow motion reveals his take-back!
Magnus Carlsen the magician!
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game6801609.html
Gashimov vs. Carlsen, 2009
World Blitz Chess Championship - Round 3
Aha - caught in the act! Gashimov tries hard
to stifle his smile but it is clearly visible at 0:33
So what did Carlsen do in the very next round against Kosteniuk?
Carlsen vs. Aronian, 2008
Amber Blindfold and Rapid - Round 4
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game940625.html
'And then something weird happened in (the game) Carlsen - Aronian; Magnus put
his Rook on a3, let it loose, saw it was a blunder and played a different move!'
Magnus Carlsen: "I just played Ra3 then I realized it was a blunder and uh I wasn't entirely sure if I put the Rook down or not ... but of course the video showed that I put the Rook down and so I had to resign."
So why should a player admit that he took back a move? First check the video and if the video is not conclusive (or there is a technical malfunction) then the player can stick to his story that he didn't do it! Genius!
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/6/Game940625.html
'And then something weird happened in (the game) Carlsen - Aronian; Magnus put
his Rook on a3, let it loose, saw it was a blunder and played a different move!'
Magnus Carlsen: "I just played Ra3 then I realized it was a blunder and uh I wasn't entirely sure if I put the Rook down or not ... but of course the video showed that I put the Rook down and so I had to resign."
So why should a player admit that he took back a move? First check the video and if the video is not conclusive (or there is a technical malfunction) then the player can stick to his story that he didn't do it! Genius!
Friday, July 5, 2013
Malakhov vs. Azmaiparashvili, 2003
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/5/Game1397437.html
'In winning the 2003 European Championship in Istanbul, Azmaiparashvili admitted (to) retracting a move against Vladimir Malakhov (who subsequently finished second). By retracting his blunder and playing a sensible move, Azmaiparashvili won the game and the tournament. Malakhov could have enforced the rules but said that he was too shocked to react.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
Did Azmaiparashvili really cheat in this instance? All of his actions were in full view of everyone. Had he been called on his retraction and subsequently denied that it even happened, then it would have been cheating. If a tennis player accidentally touches the net while making a volley and his opponent sees it but chooses not to complain to the umpire, is that cheating? In both cases it is up to the opponent to demand enforcement of the penalty. Azmaiparashvili didn't want to lose the game by a blunder and apparently Malakhov didn't want to win the game that way. So it seems that there was a meeting of the minds and the game continued under the auspices of an unspoken gentleman's agreement. Who was the victim?
'In winning the 2003 European Championship in Istanbul, Azmaiparashvili admitted (to) retracting a move against Vladimir Malakhov (who subsequently finished second). By retracting his blunder and playing a sensible move, Azmaiparashvili won the game and the tournament. Malakhov could have enforced the rules but said that he was too shocked to react.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
Did Azmaiparashvili really cheat in this instance? All of his actions were in full view of everyone. Had he been called on his retraction and subsequently denied that it even happened, then it would have been cheating. If a tennis player accidentally touches the net while making a volley and his opponent sees it but chooses not to complain to the umpire, is that cheating? In both cases it is up to the opponent to demand enforcement of the penalty. Azmaiparashvili didn't want to lose the game by a blunder and apparently Malakhov didn't want to win the game that way. So it seems that there was a meeting of the minds and the game continued under the auspices of an unspoken gentleman's agreement. Who was the victim?
Polgar vs. Kasparov, 1994
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/5/Game8255421.html
'At Linares 1994, Polgár suffered a controversial defeat at the hands of then-world champion Garry Kasparov. The tournament marked the first time the 17-year-old Polgár was invited to compete with the world's strongest players. After four games she had two points, which was a fair result considering she was rated third from last in the very strong event. Matched with Kasparov in the fifth round, the World Champion changed his mind after making a move and then made another move instead. (According to chess rules, once a player has released a piece, he cannot make a different move. So Kasparov should have been required to play his original move.) Polgár said she did not challenge this, explaining afterwards, "I was playing the World Champion and didn't want to cause unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event. I was also afraid that if my complaint was overruled I would be penalized on the clock when we were in time pressure." She was unaware at the time that the re-move was caught on tape by a television crew: the videotape showed Kasparov's fingers were free of the knight for six frames (meaning, at 24 frames per second, Kasparov had released the piece for ¼ of a second). The tournament director was criticised for not forfeiting Kasparov when the videotape evidence was made available to him. At one point Polgár reportedly confronted Kasparov in the hotel bar, asking him, "How could you do this to me?" Kasparov told reporters that his conscience was clear, as he was not aware of his hand leaving the piece. Although Polgár recovered by the end of the tournament, she went into a slump over the next six rounds, gaining only half a point. In Chess for Dummies, James Eade commented on the game, writing, "If even world champions break the rules, what hope do the rest of us have?"' ~ en.wikipedia.org
'At Linares 1994, Polgár suffered a controversial defeat at the hands of then-world champion Garry Kasparov. The tournament marked the first time the 17-year-old Polgár was invited to compete with the world's strongest players. After four games she had two points, which was a fair result considering she was rated third from last in the very strong event. Matched with Kasparov in the fifth round, the World Champion changed his mind after making a move and then made another move instead. (According to chess rules, once a player has released a piece, he cannot make a different move. So Kasparov should have been required to play his original move.) Polgár said she did not challenge this, explaining afterwards, "I was playing the World Champion and didn't want to cause unpleasantness during my first invitation to such an important event. I was also afraid that if my complaint was overruled I would be penalized on the clock when we were in time pressure." She was unaware at the time that the re-move was caught on tape by a television crew: the videotape showed Kasparov's fingers were free of the knight for six frames (meaning, at 24 frames per second, Kasparov had released the piece for ¼ of a second). The tournament director was criticised for not forfeiting Kasparov when the videotape evidence was made available to him. At one point Polgár reportedly confronted Kasparov in the hotel bar, asking him, "How could you do this to me?" Kasparov told reporters that his conscience was clear, as he was not aware of his hand leaving the piece. Although Polgár recovered by the end of the tournament, she went into a slump over the next six rounds, gaining only half a point. In Chess for Dummies, James Eade commented on the game, writing, "If even world champions break the rules, what hope do the rest of us have?"' ~ en.wikipedia.org
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Karpov vs. Chernin, 1992
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/5/Game11201578.html
'In a rapid game in Tilburg in 1992 between former World Champion Anatoly Karpov and Alexander Chernin, White had just promoted a pawn to a queen on the e8 square. Black made the discovered check 53...Kd6+. Karpov, with very little time remaining, did not see that he was in check and played the illegal move 54.Qe6+. The arbiter required Karpov to play a legal move with his queen instead (since he touched it), and he selected 54.Qe7+?? (54.Qd7+ Rxd7+ 55.Kg6 would still have drawn. After 54...Rxe7+, Karpov lost the game.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
'In a rapid game in Tilburg in 1992 between former World Champion Anatoly Karpov and Alexander Chernin, White had just promoted a pawn to a queen on the e8 square. Black made the discovered check 53...Kd6+. Karpov, with very little time remaining, did not see that he was in check and played the illegal move 54.Qe6+. The arbiter required Karpov to play a legal move with his queen instead (since he touched it), and he selected 54.Qe7+?? (54.Qd7+ Rxd7+ 55.Kg6 would still have drawn. After 54...Rxe7+, Karpov lost the game.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
Fischer vs. Donner, 1966
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/5/Game12382453.html
'In a game between future World Champion Bobby Fischer and Jan Hein Donner, White had a probably winning advantage; Black had just moved 29...Qg5–f5 and White fell for a swindle. Fischer touched his bishop, intending to move 30. Bd3, which seems like a natural move, but then realized that Black could play 30...Rxc2, and after 31.Bxf5 Rc1 32.Qxc1 Bxc1, the game would be a draw, because of the opposite-colored bishops endgame. After touching the bishop, he realized that 30.Bd3 was a bad move, but since he was obligated to move the bishop, and other bishop moves were even worse, after several seconds he played 30.Bd3. The queens and rooks were exchanged (as above) and a draw by agreement was reached after the 34th move. Had Fischer won the game, he would have tied with Boris Spassky for first place in the 1966 Piatigorsky Cup tournament.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
'In a game between future World Champion Bobby Fischer and Jan Hein Donner, White had a probably winning advantage; Black had just moved 29...Qg5–f5 and White fell for a swindle. Fischer touched his bishop, intending to move 30. Bd3, which seems like a natural move, but then realized that Black could play 30...Rxc2, and after 31.Bxf5 Rc1 32.Qxc1 Bxc1, the game would be a draw, because of the opposite-colored bishops endgame. After touching the bishop, he realized that 30.Bd3 was a bad move, but since he was obligated to move the bishop, and other bishop moves were even worse, after several seconds he played 30.Bd3. The queens and rooks were exchanged (as above) and a draw by agreement was reached after the 34th move. Had Fischer won the game, he would have tied with Boris Spassky for first place in the 1966 Piatigorsky Cup tournament.' ~ en.wikipedia.org
Unzicker vs. Fischer, 1960
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/5/Game13277515.html
'The touch-move rule produced a disastrous result for Fischer in his game as Black against Wolfgang Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. After 12.Qg3 Fischer touched his h-pawn, intending to play 12...h6. He then realized that, because of the pin on the g-file, White could simply play 13.Bxh6; 13...gxh6 would be illegal, since it would put Black's king in check by White's queen. Having touched his h-pawn, the touch-move rule required Fischer to play either 12...h6?? or 12...h5??, an almost equally bad move that fatally weakens Black's kingside. Fischer accordingly played 12...h5?? and resigned just ten moves later—his shortest loss ever in a serious game.' - How to Beat Bobby Fischer (2nd ed.) by Edmar Mednis (1997) Dover
'The touch-move rule produced a disastrous result for Fischer in his game as Black against Wolfgang Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. After 12.Qg3 Fischer touched his h-pawn, intending to play 12...h6. He then realized that, because of the pin on the g-file, White could simply play 13.Bxh6; 13...gxh6 would be illegal, since it would put Black's king in check by White's queen. Having touched his h-pawn, the touch-move rule required Fischer to play either 12...h6?? or 12...h5??, an almost equally bad move that fatally weakens Black's kingside. Fischer accordingly played 12...h5?? and resigned just ten moves later—his shortest loss ever in a serious game.' - How to Beat Bobby Fischer (2nd ed.) by Edmar Mednis (1997) Dover
Lindermann vs. Echtermeyer, 1893
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/7/Game7529062.html
'The touch-move rule has existed for centuries. In the Middle Ages strict rules were considered necessary because chess was played for stakes. Luis Ramirez de Lucena gave the rule in his 1497 book Arte de Axdres. Benjamin Franklin referred to it in his 1786 essay The Morals of Chess. At one time the rule also required the player who played an illegal move to move his king.
While that stipulation existed, it's enforcement has led to some amusing finishes to chess games such as the 1893 game between Lindermann and Echtermeyer, at Kiel.
In that game, after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 White, probably intending the usual 3.Nc3, instead placed his queen's bishop on c3. Since that move was illegal White was compelled to instead move his king.' ~ Wonders and Curiosities of Chess by Irving Chernev (1974) Dover
'The touch-move rule has existed for centuries. In the Middle Ages strict rules were considered necessary because chess was played for stakes. Luis Ramirez de Lucena gave the rule in his 1497 book Arte de Axdres. Benjamin Franklin referred to it in his 1786 essay The Morals of Chess. At one time the rule also required the player who played an illegal move to move his king.
While that stipulation existed, it's enforcement has led to some amusing finishes to chess games such as the 1893 game between Lindermann and Echtermeyer, at Kiel.
In that game, after 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 White, probably intending the usual 3.Nc3, instead placed his queen's bishop on c3. Since that move was illegal White was compelled to instead move his king.' ~ Wonders and Curiosities of Chess by Irving Chernev (1974) Dover
Tarrasch vs. Alapin, 1889
Breslau International - Round 14
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/7/Game5403250.html
'In the 1889 game between Siegbert Tarrasch and Semyon Alapin at Breslau, Alapin was expecting 5.d4, the normal move after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 in Petrov's Defence. But by the time he looked at the position he had already touched his king's bishop, intending 5...Be7 in reply to the usual 5.d4, not noticing that White actually played 5.d3 (attacking the black knight). Now compelled to move the bishop, he would lose the knight, so resigned immediately.' ~ The Fireside Book of Chess by Irving Chernev & Fred Reinfeld (1949) Simon & Schuster
View Game: http://www.viewchess.com/cbreader/2013/7/7/Game5403250.html
'In the 1889 game between Siegbert Tarrasch and Semyon Alapin at Breslau, Alapin was expecting 5.d4, the normal move after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 in Petrov's Defence. But by the time he looked at the position he had already touched his king's bishop, intending 5...Be7 in reply to the usual 5.d4, not noticing that White actually played 5.d3 (attacking the black knight). Now compelled to move the bishop, he would lose the knight, so resigned immediately.' ~ The Fireside Book of Chess by Irving Chernev & Fred Reinfeld (1949) Simon & Schuster
Monday, July 1, 2013
What is the touch move rule in chess?
'In serious play, if a player having the move touches one of their
pieces as if having the intention of moving it, then the player must
move it if it can be legally moved. So long as the hand has not left the
piece on a new square, the latter can be placed on any accessible
square. If a player touches one of the opponent's pieces then he or she
must capture
that piece if it can be captured. If none of the touched pieces can be
moved or captured there is no penalty, but the rule still applies to the
player's own pieces (Schiller 2003:19–20).
When castling, the king must be the first piece touched. If the player touches their rook at the same time as touching the king, the player must castle with that rook if it is legal to do so. If the player completes a two-square king move without touching a rook, the player must move the correct rook accordingly if castling in that direction is legal. If a player starts to castle illegally, another legal king move must be made if possible, including castling with the other rook (Schiller 2003:20).
When a pawn is moved to its eighth rank, once the player takes their hand off the pawn, it can no longer be substituted for a different move of the pawn. However, the move is not complete until the promoted piece is released on that square.
If a player wishes to touch a piece with the intention of adjusting its position on a square, the player must first alert their opponent of their intention by saying J'adoube or "I adjust". Once the game has started, only the player with the move may touch the pieces on the board ' ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess
A common variant which may be applicable only in casual play is to not consider a move completed until the player has pressed his/her clock. In that case the player may change his mind even after moving a piece to a square and releasing his/her hand from the piece. This variant is not recognized by FIDE nor the USCF.
When castling, the king must be the first piece touched. If the player touches their rook at the same time as touching the king, the player must castle with that rook if it is legal to do so. If the player completes a two-square king move without touching a rook, the player must move the correct rook accordingly if castling in that direction is legal. If a player starts to castle illegally, another legal king move must be made if possible, including castling with the other rook (Schiller 2003:20).
When a pawn is moved to its eighth rank, once the player takes their hand off the pawn, it can no longer be substituted for a different move of the pawn. However, the move is not complete until the promoted piece is released on that square.
If a player wishes to touch a piece with the intention of adjusting its position on a square, the player must first alert their opponent of their intention by saying J'adoube or "I adjust". Once the game has started, only the player with the move may touch the pieces on the board ' ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess
A common variant which may be applicable only in casual play is to not consider a move completed until the player has pressed his/her clock. In that case the player may change his mind even after moving a piece to a square and releasing his/her hand from the piece. This variant is not recognized by FIDE nor the USCF.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)