Anand Leads Amber

who was the person playing leko's game? polgar? i'm still in shock.

That was Leko "thirsty for blood".

This phrase started as a joke over at chessgames.com but it seems to be a quite accurate depiction of Leko's playing right now.

When was the last time Anand lost a -rapid- game in 28 moves???

Leko is an offensive juggernaut. He is just misunderstood.

I think Leko is a sheep in sheep's clothing. Not that there's anything wrong with sheep.

Leko is a sheep that just stomped Anand.

Leko's play might be boring, but his record is more stable than most top players.

Just check Leko's rank since 2000.
Besides Kramnik, Anand, and Topalov, he has the most stable presence in the top 10 and top 5. Since 2000, only once did he miss making the top 10, if I'm not mistaken.

"Since 2000, only once did he miss making the top 10, if I'm not mistaken."

If Frogbert´s live ratings are to be trusted, he will be 11th in the next list. Unfortunately no rating points gained today.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessuser?uname=frogbert

Anand played the piece sac line of the Najdorf. He's probably been wanting to do that for years; I expect he was grinning like a banshee the whole time. I love Amber.

Zombre,
You are referring to the actual liverating, but scroll down the page of Frogbert for the predicted rate of April where the game that will only be counted at the end of the season are omitted in the calculation. Here Leko is nr 10.

Carlson tried to cheat today....horrible thing..pathetic...what a loser

Morozovich does not need to worry about the world championship because he is not nor will he ever be near strong enough to challenge for it. So p-lease no more wasted words from that loser..get out of the cycle and let real players who trzain and play hard in...to the curb with your overrated egotistical self.

Zombre,

Even if Leko is 11th in the next rating, it still makes him most stable since 2000 after Anand, Kramnik, and Topalov. Who else does better? Everybody else swings in an out top 10 more often. For example Ivanchuk might make the 2nd place once, but for 2 years (2003 - 2004) he was not even top 10.

I am talking about long term stability, and Leko is up there with the champions.

Here we go with the monkeys flinging poo again...

Cheating? He peeked out from under his bandanna in blindfold?

John,

I have seen it in this blog and in other blogs as well ...

His name is CARLSEN

NOT Carlson ...

There exist another (Swedish) player (GM) that his name is Carlsson (Pontus is his first name, not that there is double "s").

I know it is not a typo (it happens far to frequently) and also "o" is not close to "e" at the keyboard :-)

Actually Cralsen did "cheat" in the Rapid Game.
When he made the his last move Ra3, hangs the rook, he quickly made another rock move. Aronian protested at once and the Arbitor looked at the video, all the games are recorded, and saw that Carlsen indeed played Rook A3 before chossing another move. The arbitor at once said that Carlsen Rook a3 should count and Carlsen resigned.
Kasparov also cheated some years ago against Polgar where he made a losing move and then quickly before Polgar made her winning move, made another move. It was only after the game that Polgar protested and by then it is too late to complain.

About the retractor move of Carlsen:
I guess we have all been in that situation ourselves several times. We are about to make a move, then suddenly find something better and execute that instead. Then the big question arises: Did we, or did we not let go of the piece? Amazingly hard for us to register in the heat of battle. And a scaringly common arguing theme in chess. I have seen players getting close to murdered over such arguments. Well, luckily they had cameras, and murder was prevented ;)

So the arbiter made Carlsen retract his move.

I'm sure in Carlson's case, it was the arbitor :-)

The leko-Anand game was very theoretical.
Timman played that Bc4 and Bxd4 line three years ago. This line is one of the reasons why the e6 defence isn't popular anymore against the Be3 Najdorf.

True.

I think Anand just wanted to give the line a go and thought that a rapid game against Leko at Amber would be the safest possible place to do it. He's never played the ...e6, ...e5 line in a classical game, to my knowledge.

To be honest, the whole line has been under a cloud at least since Polgar-Kasimdzhanov, San Luis 2005. While Kasimdzhanoverred early, the analysis didn't reveal anything convincing for Black.

I still think that the current fetish for the immediate ...e7-e5 is a bit silly and that ...e6 remains a viable option, albeit with a more circumspect approach after g2-g4.

"Kasparov also cheated some years ago against Polgar where he made a losing move and then quickly before Polgar made her winning move, made another move. It was only after the game that Polgar protested and by then it is too late to complain."

Not exactly. The Big Liar cheated, no doubt about it, but it was determined later that he could draw with the original Knight manoeuver. So it was not a losing move he took back.

About the Kasparov cheating: I'll believe it when I see the video. From what I remember: they claimed to have seen on the video that he released the piece for a fraction af a second. People like to repeat the story, so if it was caught on film, let's see it.

I was disappointed with what Carlsen did also. Perhaps though he was not sure if he removed his hand or not.

I guess what Carlsen did is disappointing, but I suppose time pressure can make you do strange things...

Carlson tried to cheat today....horrible thing..pathetic...what a loser
-- Posted by: john at March 18, 2008 23:42

Everyone says that Carlsen is the next Kasparov, today he -acted- like it. :-)

Actually Cralsen did "cheat" in the Rapid Game.
When he made the his last move Ra3, hangs the rook, he quickly made another rock move. Aronian protested at once and the Arbitor looked at the video, all the games are recorded, and saw that Carlsen indeed played Rook A3 before chossing another move. The arbitor at once said that Carlsen Rook a3 should count and Carlsen resigned.
Kasparov also cheated some years ago against Polgar where he made a losing move and then quickly before Polgar made her winning move, made another move. It was only after the game that Polgar protested and by then it is too late to complain.
-- Posted by: Rubinstein at March 19, 2008 04:30

Aronian should have said what Fritz 11 says when you try a takeback:

Ah ah ah, naughty, naughty!

:-)

http://blog.magnuschess.com/

In the second game Magnus got a small but comfortable advantage as white and was trying to make progress in the rook and bishop endgame when the unfortunate incident took place.
Magnus moved his rook to a3 and discovered immediately the blunder (due to Rg3+). He mind was so occupied by registering the blunder and instinctively correcting it that he did not really notice whether he had released his rook at a3 or not.
Aronian immediately took exception to the corrected move and the arbiter was involved.
Magnus was somewhat surprised when the arbiter said that the video footage clearly showed that Magnus had released the rook on a3 before moving it to c1. He has not seen the video but of course he accepted the ruling of the arbiter, and duly resigned. 0-1.
After the game Magnus has emphasised that he did not intentionally try to cheat and he has apologised to Aronian for any disagreement he may have felt during the episode.

....

Henrik Carlsen
Lommedalen, March 19th 2008.

Re the Kasparov-Polgar incident: I remember reading from a reliable authority, a detailed account that refutes the "Big Liar" characterization of Kasparov. The thrust of the description was more like a football replay situation, where the call was close enough that even the party directly involved (in this case Kasparov) might have sincerely believed that he didn't let go of the piece. The game was televised and the video showed that he did in fact release the piece - but only for "a fraction of a second," as abc states above. (It's also true that Kasparov's original move wouldn't have lost and wouldn't even have worsened his position. But that was discovered only through subsequent analysis; at the time it did look like a losing move.)

By the way, in the recent US Amateur Team East tournament, there was a final-round incident on a high board where a player touched a piece - moving it would have allowed mate in one - then went on to move another piece. His opponent called for a TD, who ultimately decided he'd violated touch-move even though there were no impartial witnesses (the game was played in a special room where the only people present were the players on each team).

In brief, that TD based her decision on what I'd call "White Ford Bronco" behavior on the part of the accused and two of his teammates. They showed gross disrespect for the TD, the opposing team, and the entire idea and process of trying to enforce the touch-move rule. Their immaturity and disrespect was appropriately viewed by the TD as evidence of guilt, much in the way that all non-racist individuals interpreted O.J. Simpson's behavior in the days after the murders he committed. (Full disclosure: I was playing on the team that brought the accusation and was awarded the decision.)

I also have a clear memory (at least one!) of retracting a move myself in a tournament, as a teenager. This all relates to Muzzy's observation that it's "Amazingly hard for us to register (that we released or didn't release a piece) in the heat of battle...I have seen players getting close to murdered over such arguments."

How true, for those of us who compete. Yet, we'd like to think that it's different at the professional level - that respect for the game itself, for what IM Dr. Danny Kopec referred to as the logic on the board, would trump the primitive urge to get an advantage by any means at hand, ethical or not.

Maybe it isn't so different - GMs, even super-GMs are no more upstanding than us amateurs. Watch the 1970s' movie "Breaking Away", about competitive bicycle racing, and you come away with the idea that pros actually are LESS scrupulous than amateurs.

But the cameras (and, one hopes, the arbiters) make it different; so let's be glad they're there.

Magnus "The Maniac" Carlsen learned his win-at-all-costs cheatin' techniques from his diabolical dad, Henrik the Horrible. It's easy to tell those two are up to no good.*

*The above comment is ironic.

Good that you mention it because on a public forum like this one can never be sure.*

*not even meant sarcastically. ;)

If he could release the piece and then make another move then it is clearly a bug in the software they are using in blindfold... No software allows a takeback once you've made your move... unless they have something like in yahoo chess where u need to drag n drop then click some stupid button on the screen which is supposed to be the clock.. doesn't the opponents clock start on its own as soon as they make a move?

Carlsen will (fortunately) never be another Kasparov. Magnus apologized to Aronian. Kasparov never apologized to (17-year-old) Judit.

stringTheory said: "If he could release the piece and then make another move then it is clearly a bug in the software they are using in blindfold..."

The takeback happened in the rapid game, not the blindfold.

The Big Liar was confronted with the infraction by the video replay and by Polgar directly, yet he not only refused to apologize, he also flatly denied releasing the piece. To assert that the release of a piece is "amazingly hard to register" is lame enough (remember Tarrasch: if you're going to the wrong square and you land on said wrong square, then you deserve whatever you get; if you don't like it then sit on your hands next time), but when replays confirm the infraction, the charade should be duly acknowledged and expiated -- but we keep forgetting that The Big Liar felt he was above the rules of the ignorant mob.

btw JJ, Breaking Away is a film, a fiction, a piece of art that came and went. Its depiction of murderous Italian racers was part of the fiction and helped move the story forward. The "idea" I left with was that it was an entertaining film.

Careful with all the poo flinging you Carlsen-bashing Monkeys; Confusious say "He who plays with poo smells stinky."

noyb, you must need a bath then

"..was appropriately viewed by the TD as evidence of guilt, much in the way that all non-racist individuals interpreted O.J. Simpson's behavior in the days after the murders he committed."

Even the racist individuals viewed O.J.'s behavior as evidence of guilt.
Their difference from the non-racists was that they were not surprised to see it.

Ovidiu,

I think it means that all those who did not interpret OJ's behavior as evidence of guilt were racist. Think about it ...

Morozevich-Anand and Kramnik-Topalov today...yikes.

Lovely finish by kramnik in the rapid game against Topalov nice queen sac what a scorcher! Anand murdered moro's french but got even more severly crushed in the blind fold game himself looking lost after 21 moves. I noticed Kramnik drew effortlessly in the petroff against a line Topalov had been succesful with.

>Ovidiu,I think it means that all those who did not interpret OJ's behavior as evidence of guilt were racist. Think about it ...>

There can not be blacks who are racist because "their anger is always real", as O-ba-ma has just explained to us.

Are there strict rules on touching pieces? Does it have to be obvious the player meant to move the piece or does brushing one pawn with your finger while reaching for another counts?

kramnik left the board today, after his win over topalov, whispering "such a beauty, such a beauty..." hehehehehe

No kidding. That was some altogether badass chess. Tactically an aesthetic masterpiece.

Yuriy, good question. Accidentally touching a piece definitely does NOT count. I don't know the exact wording, but the rule only applies when someone touches a piece with the intent to move it. So in the scenario you briefly outlined, touch-move would not apply.

Of course, less clear-cut scenarios can and do occur. I don't know what standard guidance, if any, TDs are given to determine whether someone intended to move a piece they had touched. My guess is, most TDs would always enforce touch move if witnesses (or other evidence) said the piece had been touched, unless the same evidence indicated the touch was accidental, such as a dangling finger or a hanging sleeve knocking over a piece while the hand was seen moving toward another part of the board.

Touching a piece to adjust it can be problematic too, if one is even slightly late or less than fully audible when saying, "Adjust" or "J'adoube" or equivalent.

In fact this was exactly what happened in the USATE incident I referred to earlier. The player who touched the piece that allowed mate in one, after being called upon to move that piece, said he had only adjusted it before moving the other piece. Upon which an argument raged over whether he had said, "Adjust" before touching it, simultaneously, or at all.

He (and his teammate who joined the argument) gave shifting responses on that point in their subsequent talks/arguments with the opponent, then Carol Jarecki and then Stephen Doyle. That was part of the reason that the TDs decided he had to move the piece (whereupon he immediately resigned).

Yawn, immature childish persons should not have a place in chess. Every single tournament I have played in people 'SIGH' whenever such a rude claim as 'touched i saw it dammit' is made.

o0o0 yeah Fools should not have a place in chess either.

Can you also claim the 'touché-joué' rule in blindfold chess?
Something like, "I heard him pronounce a 'r', so he has to move his rook".

Yes but can you also say Ra3 in blindfold and then state you didnt drop the piece yet?

"Gelfand played an amusing stalemate to save his kosher bacon against Aronian."

That's racist and anti-Semitic, Mig! Excuse yourself!

HAHAHAHAH Another barack-attack. Actually stating such things shows you have the brain capacity of a little worm. Racism takes 1. an espect commonly described to a group and 2. giving this a negative sound. Obviously there is nothing wrong, just enjoy the good joke.

Schlomo you shouldnt put your 'big nose' in otherones business or falsely accuse people for being racists.

And get we get over the anti semitism already? Just accept the fact bad people happen to good jews as they happens to other people.

We had slavery, communism and the holocaust. Big deal move on already (!) I don't hear Unkranians complaining every day. Grow a spine or sumthing

Wow. Magnus saved the blindfold game against Topalov. Great, exciting, resourceful chess!

"In fact this was exactly what happened in the USATE incident I referred to earlier. The player who touched the piece that allowed mate in one, after being called upon to move that piece, said he had only adjusted it before moving the other piece. Upon which an argument raged over whether he had said, "Adjust" before touching it, simultaneously, or at all."

"He (and his teammate who joined the argument) gave shifting responses on that point in their subsequent talks/arguments with the opponent, then Carol Jarecki and then Stephen Doyle. That was part of the reason that the TDs decided he had to move the piece (whereupon he immediately resigned)."

Ugh....Carol Jarecki and Doyle. One might have known that they were part of this travesty. Jarecki has made more than her share of dubious decisions, even as tournaments regularly pay her more than the going rate to officiate at USCF tournaments. And Doyle once fumbled away $15,000 in tournament proceeds that somehow never reached the USCF.

Congratulations on your cheap victory. You've demonstrated your skill in exploiting technicalities, and in making convincing arguments to arbiters and poobahs.

It's unfortunate that there were not any independent witnesses to the incident. But since there were not, Jarecki ought to have stuck to protocol and had the players continue on. In any reasonably close case, it is always better to let the result be determined "over the board", rather than by fiat.

The logic that the other player "seemed" guilty is absurd. A TD is supposed to rely on objective evidence, not on subjective things such as demeanor.

The worst part about this is that in the US Amateur Teams, players are supposed to play for the sheer love of the game. Unlike a mega Swiss, there aren't even thousands of $$ of Prize Money at stake. And yet there is still the incentive to wheedle the rules.

Why don't you post the position of the game, at the time of the alleged infraction, and we can see who had the better position.

""Gelfand played an amusing stalemate to save his kosher bacon against Aronian."

That's racist and anti-Semitic, Mig! Excuse yourself!"

Schlomo, are you saying that Gelfand's bacon isn't kosher? That would be insulting!

"Why don't you post the position of the game, at the time of the alleged infraction, and we can see who had the better position."

Yeah, that was pretty close to the main argument made by the sleaze who tried to wheedle out of moving the piece he touched. "I'm a 2300, do you think I'd consider moving a piece that would allow mate in one?", he whined to Jarecki.

You're right, Doug, players at the USATE are supposed to play for the "sheer love of the game." Which means following, and respecting, the rules. And touch-move, after all, is a universally acknowledged, long-standing rule - not some dubious or newfangled Kirsan-ism, or something put in place by "poohbahs."

Showing love for the game also means respecting one's opponents and tournament officials. People who "love the game" don't behave like a-holes, cheat or break rules, then whine like 7-year olds when they get called for it.

In fact, my teammates and I didn't have to make any "convincing arguments to arbiters and poobahs." Our opponents were the ones who convinced Jarecki to rule against them. Had they mostly kept their mouths shut and stuck to a consistent story, Jarecki surely would have stuck to protocol and at most issued a warning, since there were no independent witnesses.

Finally, Doug, if you feel that touch-move is a "technicality" rather than a solid and worthwhile rule, all I can say is, I hope you don't play in tournaments. And, if you ever play against park hustlers for money (who generally play touch-move), I'd advise you to stick to playing guys physically smaller than you, who don't have friends or weapons on hand. They're likely to object in more than words, if you refused to acquiesce in such a "technicality" (or forfeit your game and pay the price) once having started a game with them.

I've been in the middle of quite a few "Did he let go?" situations, both as the player who let go (I didn't realize it, I swear), the opponent, or the arbiter. In practically all of these cases the player catches it almost immediately (often the moment they trigger their fingers to let go of the piece), and immediately grabs it back. I've never seen someone intentionally deceive. It's a weird mental blackout.

Jon,

As a matter of fact, I rarely play in chess tournaments, precisely one is likely to encounter players who exalt winning--by hook or by crook--more than anything else. You and your ilk have taken over: I suppose congratulations are in order.

Certainly I expect no introspection on your part, but the reality is that the drastic decline in numbers of adult members of the USCF might have something to do with folks accepting your advice and "opting out" of tournaments

If YOU think that winning via some techicality (yes, that is what it is) such as Touch Move or time forfeit, or one's opponent's unwillingness to shake hands, is as gratifying, or even as legitiamate, as winning by dint of superior position achieved by outplaying your opponent over the board, then there is really little to discuss here.

For most people, the rules of chess can be adequately explained by a little 4 page pamphlet included in a $2 chess set/board box.

All of the rest of the hundreds of pages of the USCF Rule book are meant to address unequal conditions or outright cheating. And yes, the rule book does a good job of doing so, but it certainly doesn't promote good sportsmanship.

I get the sense that most Chess Masters (at least in the US) don't even have a specific passion for the game--it is merely a convenient outlet for their cutthroat competitive impulses.

"Touch move" was derived as a codification of the commonly accepted chess custom that it was unethical to derive benefit by moving the pieces around to conduct analysis at the board. The rule evolved to reduce as much of the gray area as possible by essentially making a Fetish of touching the pieces (which Reuban Fine used as grist for his pyschoanalytical commentaries).

But even you must concede that it is merely a tangential part of the competitive manifestation of chess, extrinsic to the game itself.

[Has Informant even created an International symbol for "Touch Move", yet?]

I would argue that people who love the game also don't act like "Rule Book lawyers". Your "teammate" might also have manned up, and accepted that he was outplayed, instead of weaseling out by invoking some technicality.

"Our opponents were the ones who convinced Jarecki to rule against them. Had they mostly kept their mouths shut and stuck to a consistent story, Jarecki surely would have stuck to protocol and at most issued a warning, since there were no independent witnesses."

Correction: if Jarecki had done her job correctly, she would merely have issued a warning, and let the game continue. As you say, there were no independent witnesses to corroborate the Touch Move claim. Jarecki pulled an Azmaiparishvili, and completely overstepped bounds, rather than taking a minimalistic, intellectually coherent stance.

I look forward to seeing the "White Ford Bronco" precednet being included in the next edition of the USCF rules, so that TDs will have some excuse to capriciously apply Draconian penalties (presumably reversing wins into losses), in the complete absense of independent witnesses.

By the way, just tell us: Who had the better position? (be honest)

DOug,

I agree with you on few of things you mentioned - winning a point on technicalities, forfeits, etc. isn't as much fun as winning over the board outplaying the opponent.

1) But winning on time, isn't exactly a technicality. You are expected to out-calculate the opponent within a particular time. So, if you fail to do it, you lost the game.

It is like limited over cricket match. If one team scores lesser runs in its allotted time / overs, but holds more wickets in hand [which means, the team is in a position to overcome the opponents' score], it still loses!

2) Similarly, you need something to say that the "move is final". And that something is "releasing the piece from your hand". One can be magnanimous in not invoking the technicality.

In my case, my magnanimity is subjective, and is influenced by a combination of the good-will and trust that exists with my opponent, and the personal stakes on the game / tournament.

If I think he is cheating (does it and behaves like he didn't do anything wrong or lies about it)", and/or if I think that win or loss will make a difference to my chance of winning the tournament, I ain't gonna be magnanimous.

- Thani

Doug has just pretty much stated that the root of his argument isn't with me, but with the touch-move rule itself. He also seems to have a basic objection to the idea that good conduct and sportsmanship should be an officially recognized aspect of competitive play.

So I see nothing to discuss. As with most other debates I've gotten into over the years with this or that Dirt reader, I am happy with the status quo, and he is not. Go fight City Hall.

I will add, though, that there's nothing to stop people who enjoy informal, "friendly" chess play, from playing chess to their heart's content, outside of tournament settings. For my part, I don't happen to enjoy playing chess without a clock, mandatory scorekeeping, and the tournament gestalt I'm accustomed to (which includes pairings, a fixed number of rounds, a wall chart - and yes, one or more TDs to enforce, in theory at least, rules like touch-move, no cell phone use, no distracting the opponent, and the like).

So Doug, where is your animus coming from? I don't deny you your preferred form of chess, the informal kind based on "why can't we all just trust each other?" Why then would you deny me and my fellow tournament competitors the opportunity to enjoy chess the way WE like it?

Surely you realize that without clocks or (mandatory) conventions like touch-move, the serious, competitive aspect of tournament chess would evaporate. (Imagine trying to run a tournament with money at stake - or even no money but a valued title - using the guideline that no game could be decided by a "technicality.") If there were no enforceable rules of behavior in place to secure adherence to the actual rules of play (such as, you can't take back a move), then I would no longer want to play in tournaments.

You referred to Fine's Freudian perspective on what makes people play chess. What, praytell, makes you so insistent that your way of playing chess (i.e., informal and friendly), should be the only way available to anyone?

Interesting back & forth between DOug & Jacobs.

Quote from http://www.amberchess2008.com/
"In case you wonder if the final move of the blindfold game between Boris Gelfand and Vladimir Kramnik was really 24.Qxe4 and if the result was nevertheless a draw despite White blundering his queen, we can tell you that in both cases the answer is affirmative. In the position after his 23rd move, Kramnik was expecting Gelfand to play 24.Nxe4 and after this move he intended to offer a draw. However, due to a ‘fingerfehler’, Gelfand didn’t move the knight to e4 but his queen. Kramnik understood what had happened and having no wish to win in such a manner he offered a draw anyhow."

If the opponent breaks some rule but is clearly not trying to cheat, being a stickler for the rules is lame imo.
(Of course it is not always so clear if the opponent is trying to cheat or not and it's a competition after all. Being sportsmanlike is not so easy if there is a lot at stake and you know the favor is seldom or never returned.)

"So Doug, where is your animus coming from? I don't deny you your preferred form of chess, the informal kind based on "why can't we all just trust each other?" Why then would you deny me and my fellow tournament competitors the opportunity to enjoy chess the way WE like it?"

It's not animus, Jon--it's contempt. Seriously, what did you expect your opponents to do? Congratulate you and say: "That was a wonderful invocation of the Touch Move rule! Well claimed, Sir. Especially impressed with how the TD was persuaded to issue a peremptory ruling which gave you the full point.

Some years ago, Tournament Chess (in the US) was a big enough tent (with a diverse group of participants) that was able to accomodate people of your ilk and people like me.

Think of it as a neighborhood of chess players. In a neighborhood, once you have a critical mass (say, 15%) of people who behave unpleasantly (by ignoring tacitly accepted mores), other people who feel uncomfortable in that atmosphere begin to migrate out of the area; as a result, the population may dwindle and the neighborhood less diverse. The neighborhood goes downhill....

Something similar to this dynamic has happened to the USCF. Certainly, nobody can be heartened by the long-term trends in Regular, Adult membership.

There are at least 3 or 4 Correspondence Chess Organizations in the US. Frankly, it is a pity that a similar "market" doesn't oxist for OTB players. The USCF is a monopoly, and acts like it.

By default, the USCF serves players like Jon Jacobs, and certainly provides plenty of that "gestalt" (especially the fetishization and valorizing of rules) that he seems to enjoy, and that others find tedious. As if playing some meta-mind game of chess is the same as playing chess.

It is simply laughable that Jacobs equates "good conduct and sportsmanship" with (merely) following the rules. Kind of reminds me of fundamentalists who claim that those who follow the "wisdom of the Bible" must perforce be of good character and ethical behavior. Sometimes good sportsmanship requires going above and beyond the rules. Kramnik's actions in his game vs. Gelfand today come to mind.

"What, praytell, makes you so insistent that your way of playing chess (i.e., informal and friendly), should be the only way available to anyone?"

To each their own, Jon. US Chess is the way that it is (apparently to the satisfaction of you, and the dwindling legions of those who share your Gestalt), and it does not, on balance, provide an enjoyable experience for me. Given that reality, I opt to eschew tournament competition. How can you conflate that with some attempt to deny you the chance to play the type of chess (rigidly formalistic and hostile?!) that you want to play?

That said, I reserve behaviors that I find worthy of disdain. Do you seriously think that you have the right to post your anecdotes of sleazy victories and gift points from TDs, and not expect criticism thereof? Nobody forced you to spill you guts....

Hi guys all this talk of cheating and confessing has brought back vivid memories of an incident from many years ago. Oxford city were playing the last match of the season where a win would give us the title in division 1 for the first time in decades or possibly ever (1 of the 2 oxford university teams always winning) The match turned on my game - I was white against a philidor and my set up with Qe2 and Bf4 was derived from MCO 11 - I had a good position with the opponent in time trouble but couldnt see how to finish it and tried to get to move 35 and the adjournament without spoiling the position. At about move 30 my opponent announced that he could play a move and get a 3 fold repetition did I agree? I immediately stopped the clocks and told him to demonstrate the repetition to the team captains. I had seen he had made some mistakes on his scoresheet.... Vain attempts were made on another board to reach the final position - very difficult as his scoresheet was not accurate. Where was my scoresheet they demanded I could not find it I stated repeatedly. Unable to demonstrate the repetition he forfeited the game we won the match and the title. It was not quite over - the previous week we had defeated one of the university teams however a weaker eccentric player had been put on board 1 for us and the university appealed to the British Chess Federation(!) that we had not followed the board order by strength and gained unfair advantage. Playing on board 2 or 3 for us was John Walker (the only time he played that season)now serving a prison sentence as a convicted paedophile. Controversy raged but our win was eventually confirmed. Never did find that scoresheet ......

Doug: Did you claim you did not toutch the piece? From the disscussion here, I understand that you did toutch but you consider un-ethical for a player to claim a win using this "technicality" while his position is worse.

Well, if you did say "I didn't toutch", then you are a liar and therefore you are unethical (more than a player that just uses some rule).

If from the begining you said you toutched, then it is all on your opponent. He can be gentle and let it go (as Kramnik was with Gelfand, but I doubt that he would be that gentle if his opponent was Topalov:-)). In this case you should be grateful. Or he could stick to the rules, in which case, is fair enough.

The default option, is what Jon did, and if someone is super-nice, then he may let you continue.

Do you consider Aronian unacceptable, that he pointed out that Carlsen let the piece down? After all he won on a "technicality".

Finally, these are the rules of competitive chess. If you like them, play, if not never play again, sorry.. You find this rule ridiculous, someone else can find ridiculous the concept of stalemate. You may have all this extra material, your opponent is almost mate, and it is a draw just because of the "technicallity" that the king is not threteaned?? And, I assure you that the concept of stalemate, evolved somehow, probably the same way that the "toutch-play" rule evolved.

Given what's been said already I'm content to let Doug stew in his own bile...and of course I'm heartened by derida's remarks above...still I feel compelled to insert a few mostly minor technical corrections.

First, neither Doug nor I played the game that gave rise to the touch-move incident we are debating here. Doug was not present at all; the entirety of his knowledge about the incident came from what I have stated on this thread. I was playing on the adjacent board; my teammate on Board One made the touch-move claim.

Second, as outlined in one of my previous comments, the opposing player never denied touching the piece, but claimed he'd been adjusting it on his way to moving another piece. (His hand darted immediately from the fatal piece he claimed to have adjusted, to the other piece he ended up moving. This particular fact was established by a reliable witness, namely the accused player himself, in the presence of the TD.)

So, the sole argument was over whether he had:

a) said "adjust" at all (neither my teammate nor I heard anything); or

b) said it simultaneously with touching the piece (which he stated at one point under questioning by the TD); or

c) said it unambiguously before touching the piece (which the rules require when adjusting a piece, and which he claimed at another point during the whole brouhaha).

Third, I don't know what the position on the board was at the time of the incident. But it's a pretty safe assumption it was close to equal, since the round had barely begun. I took only a brief look at the position before things wrapped up, and I presume it was somewhere around move 10 (my own game, in which the initial moves went by unuaually quickly, was on move 13 I think). My teammate had White.

Fourth, anyone who presumes any comparability between these circumstances and the Kramnik-Gelfand incident described in some other comments here, is either mentally retarded or else - more likely in Doug's case - is making dishonest arguments based on a personal agenda. That situation - a blindfold game in which Gelfand making his "move" had to be mediated by software and possibly a mouse, or at mimimum by some other unaccustomed procedure like touching the squares he wished to move from and to (I don't know the exact physical arrangement for the blindfold games) - IS properly termed a "technicality."

Fifth, of course I find it less satisfying to win due to an opponent's blunder - whether it resulted from touching the wrong piece, or not - than winning a game that both sides logically conducted from beginning to end. Likewise, I'd be less satisfied if my opponent forfeited because his cell phone rang. When an opponent forfeits by failing to show up at all, I'm not only frustrated but angry (I feel the urge to ask for a refund of part of my entry fee.) What does that have to do with the question at hand? It would be at least as unsatisfying to let someone "take back" a touch in a serious game, just as it would violate my personal sense of the game's integrity if I let some one retract a completed move or sought to retract one myself.

Finally, the following passage from Doug's last post is right on the mark: "Think of it as a neighborhood of chess players. In a neighborhood, once you have a critical mass (say, 15%) of people who behave unpleasantly (by ignoring tacitly accepted mores), other people who feel uncomfortable in that atmosphere begin to migrate out of the area; as a result, the population may dwindle and the neighborhood less diverse. The neighborhood goes downhill...."

That's exactly what I saw going on when I stepped up a few years ago to agitate for action to blockade cheaters (a phase of my life that Doug also appears to disapprove of).

Although my advocacy centered around computer-aided cheating, the above paragraph of Doug's applies equally well to other, less dramatic forms of dishonesty and bad manners in organized chess competition. The minority of players who casually violate touch-move, distract opponents, or engage in other unsportsmanlike or hostile acts - JUST LIKE THE PLAYER WHO DOUG SEEMS TO BE DEFENDING ON THIS THREAD - are certainly "behav(ing) unpleasantly (by ignoring tacitly accepted mores)." Touch a piece, and you must move it, is among the most accepted mores I know of in tournament chess.

If my advocacy has spurred any such miscreants or their hard-core sympathizers, to either re-think their behavior or "leave the neighborhood," then I am justly proud.

Or, as derida might have put it (here I boil his entire preceding comment down to a single sound bite): If you can't stand the heat (of a competition governed by enforceable rules), then stay out of the kitchen.

After round 8 in the 4th to 7th positions (!) are

8.5 GM Anand(2799), GM Kramnik(2799)
GM Topalov(2780), GM Morozevich(2765)

between them, they have won the tournament 15 times!
how the mighty have fallen.

Well, Moro was always strong in Blindfold and it's good to see he's still leading the blindfold. That only underscores the solid play exhibited by Aronian in Rapid section.

I think Aronian is taking the mantle from Anand and Carlsen is taking it from Kasparov. I don't know who'll carry Kramnik's legacy. His play is so solid and "pure", players like him only come along once every 25 years...

This blog needs to be renamed the "Monkey Poo" blog 'cause it's being flung all over...

"I think Aronian is taking the mantle from Anand and Carlsen is taking it from Kasparov. I don't know who'll carry Kramnik's legacy. His play is so solid and "pure", players like him only come along once every 25 years..."

I always considered accurate that analogue saguni mentions between Aronian as a sucessor (in universality of style, calculation abilities and personality) of Anand. About Carlsen and Kasparov, of course we can say they share the fighting spirit and chess style, as well as the success at an early age; although Carlsen doesn't need to be as outspoken as Kasparov, as he lives in a different historical context. So it is unlikely you can have reasons to "hate" Carlsen, unlike Kasparov, who can polarize people around him.

About Kramnik, perhaps Jakovenko or Tomashevsky could be considered succesors if they manage to become top players in the future. But it is quite difficult, even for Kramnik himself to survive with that play in a sport where the general tendency is completely different from that style. I might be wrong, but I don't think Kramnik will have as much longevity in the top level as Anand, for that concrete reason.

derida:

I can assure you that I didn't touch that piece. Indeed, I wasn't in New Jersey when the incident occurred.

In fact the identity of the players involved can be readily ascertained by applying the information that Jon Jacobs has revealed in his various posts (relevant passages of which are cited below) about the topic, within this thread.

Assuming that one can rely on the accuracy of Jacob's statements about the *circumstances* of the incident, we can derive the following information:

1) The incident took place at the [2008] US Amateur Team East tournament [in Parsippany, New Jersey)

2) The incident occurred during the final round [Round #6]

3) The player who allegedly committed the Touch-Move infraction was on the opposing team that was paired against Jacob's team in the 6th round.

4) The player who allegedly committed the Touch-Move infraction is quoted by Jacobs as claiming a 2300 rating.

5) The player who allegedly committed the Touch-Move infraction was forced by TD Jarecki to move
a piece that would have allowed a mate in one. The player resigned, thus losing the game.

Now, by examining the Wall Chart of the event:

http://www.njscf.org/rd6_wall.txt

We can determine the following:

Jacobs [2240, Wallchart # 163] played 2nd Board for a team named "ROOK N ROLL FOREVER".

Their opponent in the last round was a team named "THEMSELVES"

Below is the list of the 5 players who comprised that team.

From that information, it is a simple matter to determine the identity of the player with the 2300 rating who is listed as losing his 6th (Final) round game, as well as the identity of the accused's opponent.

Note that by dint of TD Jarecki's decision, Jacob's "ROOK N ROLL FOREVER" defeated the "THEMSELVES" team by a score of 3.0-1.0.
Had Jarecki merely issued a warning, and allowed the game to continue, the higher rated player (with perhaps the superior position prior to the alleged Touch Move infraction) might well have won the game in question, thus resulting in a 2.0-2.0 Drawn Match.

=========================================
THEMSELVES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63. Barnett, Alexander |2300 |P 362 | --- | --- |P 101 |P 296 |P 162 |
12657899 Board 1 | | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64. Williams, Christop |2298 |P 363 |P 214 |P 834 |P 102 |P 297 |P 163 |
12788759 Board 2 | | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Pellows, Bennet |2120 |P 364 |P 215 |P 835 |P 103 |P 298 | --- |
12758853 Board 3 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
66. Point, Gary R |1999 |P 365 |P 216 |P 836 |P 104 |P 299 |P 164 |
12757397 Board 4 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
67. matyszewska, Magda |1986 | --- |P 218 |P 837 | --- | --- |P 165 |
12855012 Alt 1 | | 0.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.5 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. THEMSELVES |2179 |W86,4.0 |B51,3.0 |W195,3.5 |B24,1.5 |W70,3.5 |B39,1.0 |
| | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. ROOK N ROLL FOREVER |2045 |B112,3.0 | W1,1.5 |B161,3.5 |W104,3.0 |B83,3.0 |W15,3.0 |
| | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROOK N ROLL FOREVER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162. Fleischman, Eric J |2259 |P 472 | P 1 |P 692 |P 436 |P 350 | P 63 |
12317050 Board 1 | | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163. Jacobs, Jon |2240 |P 473 | P 2 |P 693 |P 437 |P 351 | P 64 |
10098068 Board 2 | | 1.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164. Frangos, William J |2027 |P 474 | P 3 |P 694 |P 438 |P 352 | P 66 |
12404176 Board 3 | | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 4.0 | 5.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
165. Sorge, Philip J |1656 |P 475 | P 4 |P 695 |P 439 |P 353 | P 67 |
12550325 Board 4 | | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

["By the way, in the recent US Amateur Team East tournament, there was a final-round incident on a high board where a player touched a piece - moving it would have allowed mate in one - then went on to move another piece. His opponent called for a TD, who ultimately decided he'd violated touch-move even though there were no impartial witnesses (the game was played in a special room where the only people present were the players on each team).

In brief, that TD based her decision on what I'd call "White Ford Bronco" behavior on the part of the accused and two of his teammates. They showed gross disrespect for the TD, the opposing team, and the entire idea and process of trying to enforce the touch-move rule. Their immaturity and disrespect was appropriately viewed by the TD as evidence of guilt, much in the way that all non-racist individuals interpreted O.J. Simpson's behavior in the days after the murders he committed. (Full disclosure: I was playing on the team that brought the accusation and was awarded the decision.)"

---
"Yeah, that was pretty close to the main argument made by the sleaze who tried to wheedle out of moving the piece he touched. "I'm a 2300, do you think I'd consider moving a piece that would allow mate in one?", he whined to Jarecki."
....
In fact, my teammates and I didn't have to make any "convincing arguments to arbiters and poobahs." Our opponents were the ones who convinced Jarecki to rule against them. Had they mostly kept their mouths shut and stuck to a consistent story, Jarecki surely would have stuck to protocol and at most issued a warning, since there were no independent witnesses."
---
"First, neither Doug nor I played the game that gave rise to the touch-move incident we are debating here. Doug was not present at all; the entirety of his knowledge about the incident came from what I have stated on this thread. I was playing on the adjacent board; my teammate on Board One made the touch-move claim."

Too much time on my hands, its ticking away with my sanity
Ive got too much time on my hands, its hard to believe such a calamity
Ive got too much time on my hands and its ticking away from me
Too much time on my hands, too much time on my hands
Too much time on my hands.

The inmates are running the asylum.

Here's a funny chess photo from msn.com's slide show, The Week in Pictures:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?type=ss&launch=23732541,3842331&pg=3

According to the official website Anand has a blindfold simultaneous in the last round:

Thursday March 27 Round XI

14.00 Blind
Gelfand-Anand
Anand-Van Wely
Mamedyarov-Gelfand

Just because he's the world number one he thinks he can do GM simuls like Kasparov...

Looks like Gelfand is going to simul as well.

Well done, DOug. Do you have a point?

Amusing. I've played Alex Barnett before, and of course didn't have any problem (except of course failing to win against his Kan Sicilian, but that was my fault for not preparing much). Pretty young kid right? No hair?

In chess, as in all things, my motto is J'adoube!

Life is touch move.

Yes. He seemed to be stoned during our (aborted) match.

Barnett made big news, and VERY big money, nearly 3 years ago when he was sole top Under-2300 in the HB Global Chess Challenge. If my memory serves, he went 6/9 in the open section - which probably snagged him an IM norm to accompany his clear $25,000 prize. Not a bad haul for a 14-year old, which he must have been at that time. But 3 years later and he's still only 2300? I hope he's at least been doing something constructive outside of chess.

At this moment, of course, the big achiever is his teammate on Board Two who I faced in that match. Chris Williams earned an IM norm this past weekend at Foxwoods.

An even bigger (MUCH bigger) Foxwoods achiever is another teeanager. IM Robert Hess, age 16, tied for first in the Open at Foxwoods. See: http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8295/443/ Apparently he played AT LEAST 7 GMs, beat 4 of them, and had clinched the GM norm even before the last round (in which he outplayed GM Stripunsky with black to finish with 7/9).

On that site you can replay the long Stripunsky-Hess game. I did, and was amazed: it looked to me like Stripunsky played well but simply wasn't in the same class as his opponent, and gradually got ground down. (This is in marked contrast to Chris Williams' round one upset of Shabalov, who simply played like a patzer from beginning to end. You can replay that game in an earlier entry on the same site, one of Jonathan Hilton's blog items. Incidentally, Hilton, the Chess Life correspondent, is in high school as well - and HE, TOO, was in the running for an IM norm after 5 or 6 rounds.)

Of course, none of this is worth mentioning on Daily Dirt, while there are super-GMs playing somewhere on the planet.

As far as the USATE goes, it is worth mentioning that after the arbiter ruled against THEMSELVES, I know that at least one of the remaining players immediately forfeited their own game (which they had the better end of) in protest of the bs decision. Thus, I even venture to say that they probably would have won the match.

"But three years later and he's still only 2300? I hope he's at least been doing something constructive outside of chess."

Jon, even if the touch-move incident happened exactly as you described, statements like this do nothing more than establish you as a sanctimonious prick. A 2300-rated teenager need not apologize to anyone for his chess strength. Hell, I don't have to as a 1400-rated adult.

"...after the arbiter ruled against THEMSELVES, I know that at least one of the remaining players immediately forfeited their own game (which they had the better end of) in protest of the bs decision. Thus, I even venture to say that they probably would have won the match."
(Gerald Roberts )

I suppose it was inevitable that the real low-lifes would start coming out of the woodwork.

I'm going to make the charitable (to THEMSELVES and especially the guy on 3rd board) assumption that this "Gerald Roberts" who posted above is an absolute stranger to the team, and is simply a pure troll who posts lies just for pleasure and because it's the only excuse for a life he has....rather than that Gary Point or another team member actually knows him and asked him to lie here on their behalf.

It so happens I did see the final position in the game he's referring to above. If you want to discuss it further, "Gerald Roberts," you'll have post a reasonable sum of money with an impartial third party. In other words, if being proven a liar in public is the only experience that can get you going enough to satisfy yourself, then if you expect me to help you achieve that tingle in the groin you can't obtain any other way (such as by showing the game score here) - you will have to pay for it.

Jon,
I have no personal beef with you (I didn't even address you), but I do object to being called a liar and a troll, among other things. I am on the UTD chess team, and their team spent a lot of time hanging around my teammates during the tournament. You're right about one thing, I didn't see the final position of that game. However, based on your demeanor here as opposed to Gary's, I am much more inclined to believe his assessment of the position. The fact remains that he did resign immediately following the arbiter's decision on another board. I was simply adding to DOug's previous comment.
In other news, congrats to Hess on his outstanding performance at Foxwoods.

The inmates aren't just running the aslyum, they're beginning to build their own, which looks all crazy, like an Escher drawing. An impossible building, where people are impossibly stupid.

Topalov speaks: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4530

Gerald, I stand corrected...your last comment convincingly recasts you as neither a troll nor a liar, but more like a schlemiel - a well-meaning dupe of your acquaintance Gary, who for reasons of his own chose to tell you that the entirely resignable position he resigned in was somehow better for him. I hope he wasn't so cynical as to actually ask you to post his lie here, or anywhere.

When Gary Point resigned his game, he had just lost a pawn for no apparent compensation and (I think) was about to lose a second pawn. Yes, he did say, "This is b*s*" at least once during or after his teammate's argument with the TD. But when he resigned and fled immediately after the ruling, he distinctly said, "I've got to be somewhere." So the description of his resignation as a "protest" against the TD's ruling is hardly any closer to reality than the patent falsehood that he resigned in a better position.

(Inter alia, I had a better position when immediately after the ruling and Point's resignation I offereed my opponent a draw to clinch the match.)

Gary's "demeanor" during the incident was no better than that of his teammates on boards 1 and 2. All of them cursed in the presence of the TD, displayed contempt for the proceeding, and for very idea of a TD coming over to rule on a touch-move claim. Almost as soon as Carol Jarecki entered the room, at least one - Chris Williams - accused her of being out to get him (he said something like, "You're biased against me.")

In short, the three of them behaved like spoiled brats who for the first time in their lives have to cope with a situation where their daddy isn't the one making the rules.

A few posts up, Doug stated that a party's demeanor shouldn't be (and normally isn't) factored in as a gauge of credibility in proceedings like the one we're discussing. I guess not, on Camazotz or whatever planet he's from. Here on earth, a witness's behavior during any type of proceeding often plays a central role in assessing whether that witness should be trusted - especially when other evidence is lacking as in this case. What's more - and again I realize that extraterrestrial authorities familiar to Doug may operate differently - in disciplinary hearings in law, medicine, finance, professional sports, amateur sports, or just about any other organized activity, a party's refusal to cooperate with a proceeding is explicitly recognized as grounds for having the ruling go against them. Cursing at the arbiter is a form of non-cooperation. In a court proceeding, it constitutes a separate offense ("contempt") you can be jailed for.

Aronian running away with the event, just beat Moro.

It's great that these young chessplayers, who probably have few other opportunities to display their machismo, were able to do so by cursing at a female tournament director.

I knew that weekend tournament chess in the US was headed downhill years ago, going the way of mainstream idiotic American culture, when, also at a USATE, a young man, a master, stood up at his board, raised his arms and pumped his fists like a prizefighter scoring a knockout or an NFL player scoring a touchdown. And I don't even think the clown had won his game yet, he'd just queened a pawn or something.

Alex used to play in the D.C. Chess league, maybe still does; I only had one match with him (the aforementioned draw in the Kan Sicilian), but while he always seemed a bit rough around the edges I always thought it could be chalked up to general teenage silliness rather than being stoned or a generally bad sort.

Carlsen's loss to Kramnik today in blindfold:

Was Carlsen lost in the final position and resigned, or did he lose track and make an illegal move (I guess you're forfeited for that?)?

Wow! I've been away for awhile, but it's looks as if I haven't missed much at the Daily er ah... Bi-monthly Dirt?

r,
I think Carlsen must have lost on time, he is slighly better in the final posistion. Black actually had the advantage for most of the game, sometimes just tiny, other times rather big. His last move lost most of a rather big advantage (-2.15), but he should at least be able to draw:
D=20

Analysis by Rybka

1. ³ (-0.69): 44...Nd8 45.h4 Ra2 46.Rb6 Ra1+ 47.Rb1 Ra6 48.Kh2 h6 49.Rd1 Ra2 50.Rb1 Ra6 51.Rd1
2. = (-0.13): 44...Kf6 45.Qb2+ Ke6 46.Qb3+ Kf6 47.Qb2+ Ke6 48.Qb3+ Kf6 49.Qb2+ Ke6 50.Qb3+ Kf6 51.Qb2+
3. = (-0.13): 44...Ke6 45.Qb3+ Kf6 46.Qb2+ Ke6 47.Qb3+ Kf6 48.Qb2+ Ke6 49.Qb3+ Kf6 50.Qb2+ Ke6 51.Qb3+

A bitter loss for Carlsen, and maybe undeserved. But it was Kramnik who had the practical initiativ, and Carlsen who had to defend accurately, (and of course blid folded) with not much time, to keep his advantage (which probably didn't feel like an advantage OTB)... Carlsen has won many a game in such fashion himself. That is, from an inferior position (but with initiativ)where the opponent makes suboptimal moves in time trouble. This was, as far as I know, the first game of the tourney that a player lost directly on time.

PS. If you try to make an illegal move in Melody Amber blindfold you are not forfeited, it's just impossible to execute it.

Klemme--thank you! very informative.

"Well done, DOug. Do you have a point?"

Posted by: Theorist at March 24, 2008 17:11

Thanks, Theorist. And Yes: I do have a point.

I wanted to disabuse derida (and any other DD readers) of the erroneous notion that I was the player who allegedly committed the Touch Move infraction.

Jacobs had effectively revealed the identity of that player, but he was being coy about it. He had strewn about a few clues, sufficient to establish the alleged miscreant's identity. I simply gathered the hints together, and compiled them in such a way that even the most obtuse reader would have no trouble in figuring out the identity of Jacobs' teammate's opponent.

Of course, you'll note that ultimately it was Jon Jacobs who later explicitly revealed and confirmed the name of the person involved as Alex Barnett.

Human nature being what it is, IF one puts oneself in the position of this Alexander Barnett, it is plain to see that would have a significant disincentive to taking steps which would effectively reveal that he was the person who was involved in this embarrassing incident.

The rest is mere commentary....

Wow.

"Kramnik understood what had happened and having no wish to win in such a manner he offered a draw anyhow."

That's class.

Wasn't it also Kramnik a few years back who offered a draw in a superior position to another GM who was impaired by the flu (might have been Leko?)

Maybe you're thinking about another game, but there was the game against Lékó in Corus 2001. He agreed to a very quick draw with White - not in a much superior position, it was still well within known theory.

"``Gentlemen champions are rare,'' Peter Leko's manager Mr Carsten Hensel said at a press conference explaining the delayed start of the Kramnik-Leko encounter. Leko who is sick and had an appointment with the doctor said he would not be making it to the game at 1-30 p.m. local time. Kramnik agreed to the delayed start at 2.30 p.m. which is not a practice in this tournament. As a gesture of sportsmanship, Kramnik offered a draw with white in 15 moves unwilling to defeat a sick opponent. Kramnik is playing for the tournament title and has fallen behind in the scoring. He has 6.5 points and with two rounds left may not be able bridge the gap with the leaders." http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/01/28/stories/07280207.htm

acirce, thank you!

I know it sounds trite and cliched, but I find such examples inspiring and uplifting.

Kramnik and Anand are living proof that nice guys can be winners, too.

Everybody in this thread really needs to review this. It's a while since I've seen somthing this relevant: http://xkcd.com/386/

doUG wrote: "Thanks, Theorist. And Yes: I do have a point.

I wanted to disabuse derida (and any other DD readers) of the erroneous notion that I was the player who allegedly committed the Touch Move infraction."

Well, couldn't you have just said that? Who would have disbelieved you? The Scooby-Doo-style unmasking of the villain, presented as legalistic super-sleuthing, is just absurd.

Especially since I had already clarified (immediately beneath derida's comment that Doug was responding to) that Doug was not involved in the disputed game, or present at the scene.

enough about Carlsen already. He was caught up in the moment. Funny how people want sports figures to be ravenous beasts, which they must be, and then point fingers when they make a slip of the tongue. Oh, so now you want Carlsen to be a silky tongues politician? I personally like my chess players to be caught up in the moment and not giving a thought to how the Chickenbleep public is going to interpret their every move. Pr is for slimeball liars keep going Carlsen kick some A##!! Have you ever wondered why Korchnoi stays so competitive? 'cause he don't give a damn about nothing but winning games!

Odd.

I thought Carlsen was lost.

I'll have to go look at that position again.

I miss the USATE's living on the West Coast, it was always a good time, and I always played weirdly well at that tournament. I don't think I ever had a performance below 2000 there (not bad for a player rated 1600-1800 at the time). In '04 I actually calculated it because I went 5.5/6, ended up running at 2300+...

Ode to Monkey Poo - by Inmate 04131963

I think I shall never smell,
a blog so stinky swell,
as this w' poo thrown 'round,
and chess promethean bound.

"Well, couldn't you have just said that? Who would have disbelieved you? The Scooby-Doo-style unmasking of the villain, presented as legalistic super-sleuthing, is just absurd."

Posted by: THeoRIst at March 25, 2008 17:48

__________________________________
THeoRIst:

If you had read the post in question carefully, you would have noted that my first statements in that post were specific denials that I was involved in the incident:

"I can assure you that I didn't touch that piece. Indeed, I wasn't in New Jersey when the incident occurred."

I surmise that you might have glossed over those initial words, in your eagerness to discover the identity of Jacobs' Touch Mover.

Note that I've taken a consistantly neutral stance on the question of whether Alex Barnett is a "villain", or even whether he is guilty as charged (by Jacobs).

Who would have disbelieved me, if I had relied merely on a statement of denial? Good question....Chessplayers are--in general, and by nature--a distrustful lot.

Hypothetically speaking, if, say, Alex Barnett was posting on DD as a "Sock Puppet", he would obviously have an incentive to lie, and falsely deny that he was involved in the fracas.

However, if we assume Alex Barnett to be a "rational player", he would have a major disincentive to posting information that was embarrassing to himself. To wit, it is hard to conceive that Barnett would have wanted information posted which would allow readers to readily identify him as the specific person who was accused of the misconduct, any more than we would assume that Eliot Spitzer was pleased at the public revelations that indicated that he was "Client 9".

Clearly, the very *act* of posting information which led to the public identification of the alleged is something that enhances my credibility, specifically with respect to a denial of derida's contention.

To use a chess metaphor: I was confronted with a situation where I was at risk of being tarred. Faced with that possibility, I made the expedient move, and sacrificed the pawn (Barnett).

The onus lies with Jon Jacobs, for tacitly identifying Alex Barnett through his layered revelations. derida was mere the "Ghost in the Machine"...

I merely collated the information from Jacobs' posts, and correlated it with Wall Chart data.
It required no "Super-Sleuthing", and little time or effort.

Nor am I the one who has been engaging in legalisms. Rather, it has been Jacobs who has been employing legalistic arguments in a futile attempt to morally justify a teammate's cheap victory.

Just look at Jacobs' "Blah, blah, blah" below:

"...in disciplinary hearings in law, medicine, finance, professional sports, amateur sports, or just about any other organized activity, a party's refusal to cooperate with a proceeding is explicitly recognized as grounds for having the ruling go against them. Cursing at the arbiter is a form of non-cooperation. In a court proceeding, it constitutes a separate offense ("contempt") you can be jailed for."

Good thing that Carol Jarecki is not a judge. She'd make Roy Bean seem like the paragon of leniency.

"Especially since I had already clarified (immediately beneath derida's comment that Doug was responding to) that Doug was not involved in the disputed game, or present at the scene."

Posted by: Jon Jacobs at March 25, 2008 18:10

---------------------------
Jon, a nice touch, to be sure. And had you then seen fit to put aside your coy reluctance to explicitly reveal that Alex Barnett was the player to whom you were alluding, I would have deemed my subsequent post to be superfluous.
Alas, I thought that the DD readers would discount the veracity of your statement, and not be convinced that derida's assumption was incorrect. Moreover, the depth of obtuseness displayed in derida's post concerned me, and so I thought it warranted a decision to proceed.

You chose to seed the thread with enough hints to lead to the identification of Barnett. It's a bit late to feign chagrin now that he has been "outed" as your Touch Mover.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Carol Jarecki is an atrocious TD. I have never actually seen her make a correct decision. To rule based upon a "hunch"(to punish a bunch of "brats" and teach them a lesson) with no evidence or witnesses is so typical of her unprofessional ways that it is astouding.

I love the smell of lawsuit in the morning...

doUG wrote to me:

"If you had read the post in question carefully, you would have noted that my first statements in that post were specific denials that I was involved in the incident"

I did notice that, DoUg -- which, of course, made the ensuing verbal vomit all the more perplexing, since it was totally gratuitous.

The notion that outing the perpetrator "enhances your credibility" is delusional. Nothing could make you look sadder. You won a battle no-one else was fighting, but lost the war. The "pawn sacrifice" (a distasteful way to put it) was a blunder.

Seriously, anyone know what's happening to this blog..?!?!?

TM, it's gone to the 'Doug's'. ;-)

Caissa has deserted Anand after giving him 42..Qf3. Seriously I've never seen him so out of it in rapid. He is dropping pawns like autumnal trees shed leaves.

I have followed this 'dirt a few couple months. And read many truly good, informative, also funny comments mostly on chess. On incidents from on-going events and matches, on rules, on players and their achievements etc.
But it strikes me what needs and motifs some of the so-called bloggers might have, other than pp (primitive personal ones)?
Another chess blog has some guidelines :
No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
No personal attacks against other users.
Not stupid :-)
viktor

kosher bacon?

That anyone in chess would have anything to do with Carol Jarecki is beyond my ability to understand. I questioned a decision she made once back in the early '90s and when she didn't like it I requested to see a copy of the USCF Rules, which she refused saying that she had "written the rule" and didn't need to be shown (she turned out to be wrong, by the way). As she walked away, I said "what a bitc*" and she about had a stroke. I'll say it again, what a bitc*. Get her out of chess.

Calling someone a bitc* is both sexist and stupid, no matter what. I cannot stand alphamales like these.

Oh, and don't forget we're talking about a 70-year-old woman here.

One of my three wishes is for a magic wand to rid chess tournaments of guys like this (with the possible exception of those rated over 2750).

Is she that old? She looked more like about 60 to me. (Please don't misunderstand, my purpose isn't to compliment her looks. Stevie Nicks she ain't. I saw a pic of 59-year-old Ms. Nicks on the Web yesterday, tied to a news item about Cheryl Crow talking with Fleetwood Mac about joining their coming tour.)

More important, does anyone else notice how unconvincing it looks when people assert here with easy self-assurance (because there's no one around who could challenge them) how a TD's past rulings against them were "wrong"? Sure, you aren't biased. And I won't even ask whether you have a National TD certification to back up your superior knowledge of how the TD "should" have ruled.

I'm not a TD either. But I've spent enough time in other forums frequented by TDs to see that as a group, they tend to view chess players' whining in the exact same way a prison warden views his inmates' assertion that they're all "innocent." A little real-life experience will do that to you. The display made by Barnett & Co. was ugly, but no worse than what most TDs encounter day in and day out, from the World Open to the local Tuesday night club ladder championship. And adult players are said to generate as much, or more, of the abuse than teens or children.

Viewed against this context, being a "bi*ch" (or a pr*ck if you're male) is actually a positive quality in a TD. If you aren't p*ssing people off, it's very likely you aren't doing your job.

(Notice I'm excluding closed professional events here. Complying with arbiters looks to me like one of the few areas where chess pros on the whole are better-behaved than amateurs. Of course pros, unlike amateurs, may face meaningful penalties if they go postal in front of an arbiter.)

Wikipedia has Jarecki's birth date as 1935. I didn't try to confirm this independently, though...

OK, sounds like she is over 70.

My goodness, she's even older than John McCain! I don't know what the deal is: Why is Jarecki still working these tournaments? I can see giving the gig to some retired Grandmaster who needs the money, but otherwise it makes little sense to have somebody who is past their prime (and many seem to think that she was not all that competent when she was younger) continue to serve as TD. In some accounts that I've read, she commands a substantially higher fee than other NTDs or Arbiters, and she is reputed to be quite affluent.
I guess that the USCF wants to keep her happy...

"Viewed against this context, being a "bi*ch" (or a pr*ck if you're male) is actually a positive quality in a TD."

Agreed, Jon. I TD (and referee football), and when I need to, I'm fully capable of hitting the prick button.

I have no problem with Carol Jarecki, but I do have a problem with sore winners. And you passed the sore winner threshold even before you suggested a 2300-rated teenager should be ashamed for being rated only 2300.

You've won. Enough.

tHeOrIsT wrote:

"I did notice that, DoUg -- which, of course, made the ensuing verbal vomit all the more perplexing, since it was totally gratuitous.

The notion that outing the perpetrator "enhances your credibility" is delusional.
________________

Whoa, tHeOrIsT!:

It's not so nice to play the cheap rhetorical game of quoting my statements out of context. Here is the entire relevant passage:

"...that enhances my credibility, specifically with respect to a denial of derida's contention."

Notice that I had qualified my statement to reflect that my post had only had the effect of making the specific denial [of derida's contention] more credible. This is manifestly true; it is "delusional" to think otherwise!

On the larger question of whether my post enhanced my credibility within the DD community, it is reasonable to assume that it did not. When one participates in something akin to a "Flame War", everybody involved tends to lose some credibility. Regrettable, to be sure, but hardly of great consequence.

You seem to have a strange notion of "gratuitous".

Gratuitous is when a squadron of B-29 Bombers obliterate a 14th Century old Abbey at Monte Cassino, when it wasn't even (at the time) occupied by German troops.

Gratuitous is launching a war against a weak and hobbled Iraq, for the stated purpose of finding and disposing of WMDs that turn out not to exist.

My post had an impact because it contained a statement of denial, and it *had the effect of* positively identifying the "perpetrator" (as you describe him). This is much more powerful than a mere denial, which is why the credibility of the statement was enhanced.

There is the old saying: You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Unlike Jon Jacobs, I have no antipathy towards this Alex Barnett. If my post caused some "collateral damage" to his interests, than that's unfortunate.

What you call "verbal vomit" was mostly comprised of "cut and pasted" data from a tournament Wall Chart. I merely distilled Jacobs' various statements, and by doing so made his coy identification of the "perpetrator" much more manifest. If you didn't have an interest in learning the identity of Jacobs' teammates' opponent, you would not have read the rest of the post--the 2nd paragraph clearly indicates that is what will follow.

Don't for a minute conclude that your sanctimony has burnished your image here, tHeOrIsT.

It's been said that the problem with wrestling with a pig is that you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

Well, tHeOrIsT (oh, how clever it was for you to riff on how I type my name), you can enjoy having the last word here...

I think we all need to sit down and have a nice cup of tea. (if you make it scalding enough, you can throw it in each other's faces.) But seriously guys isn't this a patent demonstration of internet silliness. Group hug! Feel the love!

Speaking of bias, after scanning the various walls of text I couldn't help but notice how Jon has brought up numerous times the poor behavior of his opponents, almost as a subtle insinuation that they deserved to be ruled against on those grounds alone. It really appears as though the TD had insufficient proof of what actually transpired, but she nonetheless decided to rule in Jon's favor anyway. That is just the sort of arbitrary ruling that 'daddies' hand down on a regular basis. One might inquire as to whether her impartiality could have been compromised by the presence of a colleague / acquaintance in the debate.

On a more serious note: Mig, please come back and throw us a few crumbs. I can't recall such an atrocious thread in years.