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:[email protected]m...
> 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.


 
Date: 03 Jun 2008 09:26:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
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:[email protected]m...
> > 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:[email protected]m...
> 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




 
Date: 02 Jun 2008 09:00:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Krush Letter
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.