|
Main
Date: 01 Jun 2008 10:32:41
From: Chess One
Subject: The Krush Letter
|
Mentioned several times in the SusanPolgar blog over the past two weeks, and also in the Alekhine's Parrot column at Chessville, the very strange circumstances of the last game of the Women's Championship continues to cause substantial waves. This week Irina Krush wrote a long open letter [see the Polgar Blog, or the Parrot this weekend where 90% of it is repeated] about the apparent pressing of the clock before the opponent's move was complete. There is a 30-second U-tube video to also inform yourself of what happened. Irina Krush gives the context for the final games, and makes specific commentary on the last few seconds - what seemed to her to be impossible. She also mentions her invitation to Anna Zatonskih to discuss and re-evaluate what happened, and the lack of reply to that offer. She also rather pointedly asks the organisers what they were about. see: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ Phil Innes
|
|
|
Date: 05 Jun 2008 22:13:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Jun 5, 10:45 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > Your question is in fact: Can one make a move before the opponent has > stopped his clock and started the opponent=92s clock? A: Yes, *if one is quick enough*! : >D > To answer this I refer to Article 6.8.a: > > During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, > shall stop his own clock and start his opponent=92s clock. A player must > always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to > have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was > made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2) This implies that if the opponent forgets to press his clock button, you have to just sit there and (eventually) win on time. > Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that > based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move > before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has > the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent=92s clock, > even after the opponent has made his move. This targets those unscrupulous folks who are not only lightning-quick, but who use a two-handed technique involving moving with one hand, and holding down their clock button down with the other so that none of their own time elapses. > Big deal. Your opponent gets to move on your time, but you *do* get > to punch the clock. Press. The clock button should be *pressed*, just as in lifting weights. Punching the clock is not recommended, unless you are wearing protective gloves or if the clock is of the fragile plastic variety. (Note to Mike Tyson: the clock should also not be bitten or mangled in rated play; skittles is another matter.) -- help bot
|
|
Date: 04 Jun 2008 17:37:54
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Jun 4, 4:10 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > Why not the simple rule that one cannot touch a piece until the > opponent has punched the clock? Not so simple; in that case, a player could still reach for -- but not actually grasp -- a man, before his opponent had pressed the clock. This seems arbitrary, at best. Once a player has released a man on its new square, his move is completed, except for the pressing of his clock button. This is because the rules forbid take-backs, ala Gary Kasparov. Thus, the opponent should be able to begin making his reply, so long as he in no way interferes with the opponent moving his hand and arm to press his clock. The player who has not yet pressed his clock cannot be held accountable for blocking his opponent's view of the board with the hand/arm he just used to make his move, since it is still "his time" that is elapsing on the clock. Really, it is fairly obvious when a player is deliberately cheating, even if spelling out the multitude of possibilities in a rulebook is not so simple. I watched Walter Brown and Anatoly Lein do it, and you could tell by the fact that they were both in trouble on the board, and they both succeeded to some extent in causing their respective opponents to be unable to focus on the board; that is covered under the distracting or annoying your opponent rule, but some folks seem to feel they are "above" the rules. It goes without saying that such players as those two have less /need/ to cheat than ordinary players, who are more often losing on the board. Some of the few players in my neck of the woods who cheat have been doing so for decades, and yet they have not been "excommunicated", so to speak. In fact, if you were to look at a historical list of tournament winners hereabouts, some of their names would be among them! Truth be told, I cannot think of a single "horrible" chess player who ever cheated against me; surprisingly, all of the local cheaters I've known were in the top half of the charts, and as I related above, the two I spotted in Ohio were both grandmasters-- weird stuff. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 04 Jun 2008 17:13:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Jun 4, 11:03 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Regardless of whether or not any claim could be made > > at this late date, it is well that people are made aware of > > just who the cheaters are. The video I watched (albeit in > > herky-jerky motion) revealed that one of these two > > contestants systematically cheated; such cheating > > ought to be "rewarded" by forfeit of the game in order to > > prevent the disease from spreading... . > I think the penultimate move actually shows both players with hands on the > clock at the same time - this means that Irina was about to puch the clock > button after move, but Anna had already moved and was pushing the button at > the same time - as above, the video framing makes it difficult to see if she > was before, after or simultaneous with Irina. > > The video quality is also insufficient to read the clock. According to Irina > Krush her last glance at the clock showed something like 6 seconds for > herself and 2 seconds for Anna Zatonskih. > > Unless Anna actually moved on Irina's time it is not credible from the video > footage to think that it was Irina who timed-out. Note, once again: my comment was that even in herky-jerky blurred motion, it was obvious that one of the two players *systematically* cheated. "Systematically" does not mean that on any one move she did something unscrupulous, as in the infamous Gary Kasparov take-back versus Judith Polgar; it means she cheated over and over, in a /systematic/ way. As in the Colle "System"; or as in My "System"; or like when Sanny forfeits people in drawn games. > What do you think: here again is the URL:http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ I think those who witness such games /in person/ are in a far better position to judge precisely what happened, since they don't get a herky-jerky video from way off to one side of the board. From my perspective, I could not tell who was winning on the board, or anything like that. > I know Tom B, the TD, and am on good terms with him, and also understand > that he has responded to this issue, stating that he will present further > rulings. > > As far as I can see, there are several things wrong here - in fact by both > players - an initial offence is that Irina had not righted a rook before > hitting the clock, but then there is 'hovering' over clock and board by both > players, mostly Anna - and this at minimum obstructs the other players view > of the board, and perhaps even opportunity to move your pieces without > encountering the hand of the other player [again see for yourself, > especially surrounding the situation when a piece is eliminated by Irina, > and seems to fall over on Anna's side of the baord - finally there is moving > on opponents time, which obviously happened, and I must presume is part of > Armageddon rules. I am not familiar with the Armageddon rules, but I would be very surprised if they allowed one player to stick her arm out over the board, pulling up her sleeve while her opponent was on move; this happened systematically, as in "I will NEVER wear this blouse again, EVER" or as in "this is my lucky blouse, as my opponents can't even see the board!!" That same player, it appeared to me, was the one knocking men over, again and again-- once again, /systematically/ cheating. > It both Fide and Blitz rules are varied, and it is allowable to move on > opponents time, then that aspect of things is eliminated. Otherwise the > rules state that releasing the piece constitues 'a move' [in the sense that > no other move may be made instead] they also say that a player should have > opportunity to punch their clock. This is where Mr. Sloan missed the boat; he obviously is unfamiliar with the rules of blitz chess. I haven't played it in decades, but I do recall that the player must be allowed to press their clock. If they forget, you can go ahead and move, but you cannot knock men over or off the board unless you reset them properly *on your own time*! Without these rules, the game is not a contest of chess skill; it instead becomes a contest of blatant cheating. (I think any contest in cheating skill should focus on subtlety, not this kind of obvious stuff.) > [I cited rule numbers previously, both for > Official Blitz and Fide rulings] > > In terms of 'when a game is over' at least the Fide rule says that it an > offense is registered, then the result of game is still open. Unfortunately > it does not say by whom - eg, if the TD sees an offence or cheating - is > that sufficient reason to intervene? Regardless of the outcome in this particular instance, I think it is well that we point out when a player cheats, put a little sunlight on the matter. > What, after all is the TD doing there? In FIDE events like the one in which GK cheated against JP, the arbiter is supposed to enforce the rules himself. But in nearly every event in which I have participated, it was understood that since the TD could not constantly "patrol" every board, the players themselves had to make a claim. Another difference is that none of my "brilliancies" were ever filmed for posterity. > I suppose, given that the video makes much clear, a delay in making a > complaint may also be justified - see reviewing the video may only be > possible after it is published, and perhaps the player had a travel day as > well. Much seems to depend on these technical factors > > # if you can move on the other person's time? > # what constitutes reasonable objection time in these circumstances? > # and the role of the TD to intercede > > I don't know answers to any of those questions yet. I had never even heard of "Armageddon rules" before this thread. What the heck are they? -- help bot
|
|
Date: 04 Jun 2008 03:14:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote: > Very OLD news Phil. The bottom line is that Krush, by her own > admission, did not make a timely protest and is thus not entitled to > make a protest now. Anna has no obligation to reply to Krush and/or > discuss anything. > > Irina should excuse herself, go to the toilet, vomit, get it out of her > system and move on. "Blaming the victim" is a technique often used to justify cheating by cheater-apologists. Regardless of whether or not any claim could be made at this late date, it is well that people are made aware of just who the cheaters are. The video I watched (albeit in herky-jerky motion) revealed that one of these two contestants systematically cheated; such cheating ought to be "rewarded" by forfeit of the game in order to prevent the disease from spreading... . -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 11:03:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:a59b7080-05db-4549-9f42-98d6a16fbfc1@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Brian Lafferty <[email protected]> wrote: > Regardless of whether or not any claim could be made > at this late date, it is well that people are made aware of > just who the cheaters are. The video I watched (albeit in > herky-jerky motion) revealed that one of these two > contestants systematically cheated; such cheating > ought to be "rewarded" by forfeit of the game in order to > prevent the disease from spreading... . I think the penultimate move actually shows both players with hands on the clock at the same time - this means that Irina was about to puch the clock button after move, but Anna had already moved and was pushing the button at the same time - as above, the video framing makes it difficult to see if she was before, after or simultaneous with Irina. The video quality is also insufficient to read the clock. According to Irina Krush her last glance at the clock showed something like 6 seconds for herself and 2 seconds for Anna Zatonskih. Unless Anna actually moved on Irina's time it is not credible from the video footage to think that it was Irina who timed-out. What do you think: here again is the URL: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ I know Tom B, the TD, and am on good terms with him, and also understand that he has responded to this issue, stating that he will present further rulings. As far as I can see, there are several things wrong here - in fact by both players - an initial offence is that Irina had not righted a rook before hitting the clock, but then there is 'hovering' over clock and board by both players, mostly Anna - and this at minimum obstructs the other players view of the board, and perhaps even opportunity to move your pieces without encountering the hand of the other player [again see for yourself, especially surrounding the situation when a piece is eliminated by Irina, and seems to fall over on Anna's side of the baord - finally there is moving on opponents time, which obviously happened, and I must presume is part of Armageddon rules. It both Fide and Blitz rules are varied, and it is allowable to move on opponents time, then that aspect of things is eliminated. Otherwise the rules state that releasing the piece constitues 'a move' [in the sense that no other move may be made instead] they also say that a player should have opportunity to punch their clock. [I cited rule numbers previously, both for Official Blitz and Fide rulings] In terms of 'when a game is over' at least the Fide rule says that it an offense is registered, then the result of game is still open. Unfortunately it does not say by whom - eg, if the TD sees an offence or cheating - is that sufficient reason to intervene? What, after all is the TD doing there? I suppose, given that the video makes much clear, a delay in making a complaint may also be justified - see reviewing the video may only be possible after it is published, and perhaps the player had a travel day as well. Much seems to depend on these technical factors # if you can move on the other person's time? # what constitutes reasonable objection time in these circumstances? # and the role of the TD to intercede I don't know answers to any of those questions yet. Phil Innes > > -- help bot > >
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jun 2008 13:10:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:03:30 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >It both Fide and Blitz rules are varied, and it is allowable to move on >opponents time, then that aspect of things is eliminated. Otherwise the >rules state that releasing the piece constitues 'a move' [in the sense that >no other move may be made instead] they also say that a player should have >opportunity to punch their clock. [I cited rule numbers previously, both for >Official Blitz and Fide rulings] I've read some discussion claiming it's allowable to *begin* one's move before the opponent has punched the clock, but not to *complete* that move. IMO, this is ridiculous and encourages a chaotic playing environment, difficult both for the director/arbiter and for players with a sense of sportsmanship. Why not the simple rule that one cannot touch a piece until the opponent has punched the clock? Excessive hovering would be covered under the rule forbidding annoying the opponent. (Defining "excessive" -- that's why the directors get the big bucks, heh, heh).
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 14:28:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > I've read some discussion claiming it's allowable to *begin* one's > move before the opponent has punched the clock, but not to > *complete* that move. IMO, this is ridiculous and encourages a > chaotic playing environment, difficult both for the director/arbiter > and for players with a sense of sportsmanship. It depends what is meant by `begin one's move'. Under FIDE laws, my move is not finished until I have released the piece on its destination square, removed any captured piece or promoted pawn and pressed the clock. It is not your move until I have completed my move so you have no right to touch any pieces in that time. This is the same for all time controls. > Why not the simple rule that one cannot touch a piece until the > opponent has punched the clock? I would say that the FIDE rules already imply this by only saying that the player may touch pieces when it is his move. > Excessive hovering would be covered under the rule forbidding > annoying the opponent. Excessive hoovering, also. Dave. -- David Richerby Strange Windows (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface but it's totally weird!
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Jun 2008 07:45:18
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On 05 Jun 2008 14:28:42 +0100 (BST), David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: >Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've read some discussion claiming it's allowable to *begin* one's >> move before the opponent has punched the clock, but not to >> *complete* that move. IMO, this is ridiculous and encourages a >> chaotic playing environment, difficult both for the director/arbiter >> and for players with a sense of sportsmanship. >It depends what is meant by `begin one's move'. Under FIDE laws, my >move is not finished until I have released the piece on its >destination square, removed any captured piece or promoted pawn and >pressed the clock. It is not your move until I have completed my move >so you have no right to touch any pieces in that time. Yeah, that's the commonsense interpretation of what the laws *should* be. But, according to Geurt Gijssen (http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm), the official FIDE regs don't say that: <quote > Your question is in fact: Can one make a move before the opponent has stopped his clock and started the opponent�s clock? To answer this I refer to Article 6.8.a: During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent�s clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game. (See Articles 5.1, and 5.2) Although it is not articulated clearly, it is generally accepted that based on this Article the opponent has the right to make his move before the player has stopped his clock. However, the player still has the right to stop his own clock and to start the opponent�s clock, even after the opponent has made his move. </quote > Big deal. Your opponent gets to move on your time, but you *do* get to punch the clock.
|
|
FIRST INSTANT TV REPLAY THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 243) The first time I saw intelligent boards used was in a $100,000 blitz event won by Mikhail Tal at the 1988 World Chess Festival in Saint John, Canada. The crowd also watched the first instant TV replay in chess history. In blitz each side has only five minutes for the entire game and nobody has to write down moves. The diagram is from Rafael Vaganian vs. Kiril Georgiev and White=92s two extra pawns should win if he can do it before his time runs out. White found the only illegal move! Normally in blitz a player is disqualified for making an illegal move. At lightning speed, play proceeded 61 f4?? Rxg3. Black snatched the king and claimed the game. But the contestants all agreed at a meeting held before this event began that an illegal move could be corrected if it was done before punching the clock. So now the outcome hinged on a technicality. Fortunately TV cameras were running and an instant replay proved Vaganian did not punch his clock. Saved by the bell, he was allowed to substitute 61 Kg4 (for f4??) and then proceeded to win the disputed position. All=92s well that ends well. Chess One wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:88c2ad1a-1abf-49c6-989a-e47bd050b4d2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 2, 5:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > > It is never the rule in any kind of chess, including 40 moves in 2 > > hours chess, that one must wait until the opponent has hit the clock > > before replying. > > > > Sam Sloan > > That is the reply by Sam Sloan on the issue of the blitz finish for the > woman's title. > > Yet the player with the move, even in Blitz Chess [World Blitz Chess > Association Official Rules, Maxwell, forward Walter Browne] states (6d) th= at > a player must be allowed to punch their clock after their move. [These not= es > also taken from The Laws of Chess of their Interpretation, with Fide > interpretations.] > > 6d also states that it is illegal to hover over the clock. > > I believe it is also illegal to hover over the board so that one's pieces > are obscured - though I can't find the Fide rule which describes this. > > It also states [rule 9] that knocking over a piece [as we saw in the vide= o] > and punching the clock without righting it, is illegal, and should have a > penalty. Rule 15 states that a move is complete when the hand leaves the > piece - but in view of 6d above this means that the opponent cannot move a= nd > punch their clock before the first player has punched their clock. > > Fide interpretation of 9.1, Illegal Positions - as occurred with the video= > sequence, the clock being pressed before the piece was righted, the rule > states that the position shall be set-up again as it was immediately befor= e > the making of the illegal move. > > Fide Interpretation of 9.1: 1963. During a game is defined to be still in > progress if it is established that an illegal move was made. > > It continues to state: (9.2) If, in the course of a game, one or more piec= es > have been accidentally displaced and are not correctly replaced, the > position must be set up as it was immediately before the mistake and the > game continued. It then adds: If it proves impossible to set up the positi= on > again then the game must be annulled and a fresh game played. > > -- > > Okay - It is CLEAR that the game should have been stopped by the TD - sinc= e > everyone watching that video could see 2 things, the piece upset by Anna a= nd > also her righting it after punching her clock, and in doing so inhibiting > Irina's ability to move, press her own clock or even see the pieces when h= er > own clock is ticking. In fact, hovering/obscuring occurred several times i= n > the last 15 seconds. > > The intercessionary powers of the TD are invoked. Unless... > > Unless all these major differences from both official blitz and Fide > interpretations are varied by Armageddon rules [which btw need to be poste= d > in duplicate in advance of the game so that each player has adequate time = to > review them - unless these too are varied by Armageddon] then quite > evidently there are sufficient errors in this game to warrant annulling it= . > > Therefore - are these factors varied? What actually are these Armageddon > rules? Who is responsible for invoking violations, and what role does the = TD > or arbiter play? > > Phil Innes
|
|
Date: 02 Jun 2008 15:20:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
On Jun 2, 5:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > The basic complaint by Irina Krush is that Anna started making her > > moves before Irina has pressed her clock. As a result, although Irina > > had 8 seconds left whereas Anna had only 2 seconds left, Irina lost on > > time, in an otherwise winning position. > > > However, I know of no rule that says that in blitz chess a player must > > wait until the opponent has completed her more before replying. > > !! > > So its not chess as we know it? I wonder what the Armageddon rules actually > state? Anybody know > > [I dismiss the earlier reply by the BRAIN as being insufficiently > contentful] > > Phil Innes > > > Therefore, I think that the claim by Irina Krush is without basis. > > > However, I find it unfortunate that the US Woman's Chess Championship > > has been decided by such an outcome. > > > Sam Sloan It is never the rule in any kind of chess, including 40 moves in 2 hours chess, that one must wait until the opponent has hit the clock before replying. Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 03 Jun 2008 09:44:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:88c2ad1a-1abf-49c6-989a-e47bd050b4d2@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 5:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > It is never the rule in any kind of chess, including 40 moves in 2 > hours chess, that one must wait until the opponent has hit the clock > before replying. > > Sam Sloan That is the reply by Sam Sloan on the issue of the blitz finish for the woman's title. Yet the player with the move, even in Blitz Chess [World Blitz Chess Association Official Rules, Maxwell, forward Walter Browne] states (6d) that a player must be allowed to punch their clock after their move. [These notes also taken from The Laws of Chess of their Interpretation, with Fide interpretations.] 6d also states that it is illegal to hover over the clock. I believe it is also illegal to hover over the board so that one's pieces are obscured - though I can't find the Fide rule which describes this. It also states [rule 9] that knocking over a piece [as we saw in the video] and punching the clock without righting it, is illegal, and should have a penalty. Rule 15 states that a move is complete when the hand leaves the piece - but in view of 6d above this means that the opponent cannot move and punch their clock before the first player has punched their clock. Fide interpretation of 9.1, Illegal Positions - as occurred with the video sequence, the clock being pressed before the piece was righted, the rule states that the position shall be set-up again as it was immediately before the making of the illegal move. Fide Interpretation of 9.1: 1963. During a game is defined to be still in progress if it is established that an illegal move was made. It continues to state: (9.2) If, in the course of a game, one or more pieces have been accidentally displaced and are not correctly replaced, the position must be set up as it was immediately before the mistake and the game continued. It then adds: If it proves impossible to set up the position again then the game must be annulled and a fresh game played. -- Okay - It is CLEAR that the game should have been stopped by the TD - since everyone watching that video could see 2 things, the piece upset by Anna and also her righting it after punching her clock, and in doing so inhibiting Irina's ability to move, press her own clock or even see the pieces when her own clock is ticking. In fact, hovering/obscuring occurred several times in the last 15 seconds. The intercessionary powers of the TD are invoked. Unless... Unless all these major differences from both official blitz and Fide interpretations are varied by Armageddon rules [which btw need to be posted in duplicate in advance of the game so that each player has adequate time to review them - unless these too are varied by Armageddon] then quite evidently there are sufficient errors in this game to warrant annulling it. Therefore - are these factors varied? What actually are these Armageddon rules? Who is responsible for invoking violations, and what role does the TD or arbiter play? Phil Innes
|
|
Date: 02 Jun 2008 13:14:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
The basic complaint by Irina Krush is that Anna started making her moves before Irina has pressed her clock. As a result, although Irina had 8 seconds left whereas Anna had only 2 seconds left, Irina lost on time, in an otherwise winning position. However, I know of no rule that says that in blitz chess a player must wait until the opponent has completed her more before replying. Therefore, I think that the claim by Irina Krush is without basis. However, I find it unfortunate that the US Woman's Chess Championship has been decided by such an outcome. Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2008 17:51:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > The basic complaint by Irina Krush is that Anna started making her > moves before Irina has pressed her clock. As a result, although Irina > had 8 seconds left whereas Anna had only 2 seconds left, Irina lost on > time, in an otherwise winning position. > > However, I know of no rule that says that in blitz chess a player must > wait until the opponent has completed her more before replying. !! So its not chess as we know it? I wonder what the Armageddon rules actually state? Anybody know [I dismiss the earlier reply by the BRAIN as being insufficiently contentful] Phil Innes > Therefore, I think that the claim by Irina Krush is without basis. > > However, I find it unfortunate that the US Woman's Chess Championship > has been decided by such an outcome. > > Sam Sloan
|
|
LINARES 1994 This is reminiscent of Judith Polgar's failure to make a timely protest when Garry Kasparov took back a move against her in their first encounter. Brian Lafferty wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > Mentioned several times in the SusanPolgar blog over the past two weeks, and > > also in the Alekhine's Parrot column at Chessville, the very strange > > circumstances of the last game of the Women's Championship continues to > > cause substantial waves. > > > > This week Irina Krush wrote a long open letter [see the Polgar Blog, or the > > Parrot this weekend where 90% of it is repeated] about the apparent pressing > > of the clock before the opponent's move was complete. > > > > There is a 30-second U-tube video to also inform yourself of what happened. > > > > Irina Krush gives the context for the final games, and makes specific > > commentary on the last few seconds - what seemed to her to be impossible. > > > > She also mentions her invitation to Anna Zatonskih to discuss and > > re-evaluate what happened, and the lack of reply to that offer. She also > > rather pointedly asks the organisers what they were about. > > > > see: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ > > > > Phil Innes > > > > > Very OLD news Phil. The bottom line is that Krush, by her own > admission, did not make a timely protest and is thus not entitled to > make a protest now. Anna has no obligation to reply to Krush and/or > discuss anything. > > Irina should excuse herself, go to the toilet, vomit, get it out of her > system and move on.
|
|
Date: 01 Jun 2008 21:58:44
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
|
Chess One wrote: > Mentioned several times in the SusanPolgar blog over the past two weeks, and > also in the Alekhine's Parrot column at Chessville, the very strange > circumstances of the last game of the Women's Championship continues to > cause substantial waves. > > This week Irina Krush wrote a long open letter [see the Polgar Blog, or the > Parrot this weekend where 90% of it is repeated] about the apparent pressing > of the clock before the opponent's move was complete. > > There is a 30-second U-tube video to also inform yourself of what happened. > > Irina Krush gives the context for the final games, and makes specific > commentary on the last few seconds - what seemed to her to be impossible. > > She also mentions her invitation to Anna Zatonskih to discuss and > re-evaluate what happened, and the lack of reply to that offer. She also > rather pointedly asks the organisers what they were about. > > see: http://youtube.com/watch?v=fNQjXHjRkNQ > > Phil Innes > > Very OLD news Phil. The bottom line is that Krush, by her own admission, did not make a timely protest and is thus not entitled to make a protest now. Anna has no obligation to reply to Krush and/or discuss anything. Irina should excuse herself, go to the toilet, vomit, get it out of her system and move on.
|
|