nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cork IS running this year

mikhail

Gerry Graham mentioned at the Gonzaga prizegiving yesterday that Cork is off this year.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sodacat11

A few late entries have made Cork a very interesting tournament. The top three seeds are all 2200s so not invincible by any means and there are a lot of up and coming younger players playing too. The hotel is very nice and the playing conditions are excellent so it should be a very enjoyable weekend as long as I don't lose a stack of rating points.
A coupe of things I should mention.Firstly it was announced tonight that next year's tournament will be on the same weekend. This doesn't make any sense to me as St Andrews are planning to hold their excellent congress either the last weekend in September or the first in October. Both are excellent tournaments that I would love to see flourish but they are shooting themselves in the foot by competing with each other. March is a barren month for chess, could the organisers of Cork and St Andrews not email each other and agree that one tournament is held around now and the other in March?
Secondly, the arbiter announced tonight that the pairings and results could not be posted on the ICU site because of this new data protection crappy law. This is political correctness gone stark raving bonkers. I cannot believe that to publish a draw for a tournament would in any way break the law.How is it that football fixtures can be published as can golf scores, quotes from people, adresses of people who appear in court etc etc etc . If the draw, results and games from a chess tournament cannot be put online then all news reporting and media activity must be illegal. The whole thing really is a joke. IF the data laws are that strict then what's to stop a footballer who scores an own goal or gets sent off from barring SKY and The BBC from showing the incident? I really cannot believe that any law could be that stupid. Maybe the Cork organisers are just a teeny weeny bit paranoid???

Retd.LoyolaCpt

sodacat11 wrote: »

A few late entries have made Cork a very interesting tournament. The top three seeds are all 2200s so not invincible by any means and there are a lot of up and coming younger players playing too. The hotel is very nice and the playing conditions are excellent so it should be a very enjoyable weekend as long as I don't lose a stack of rating points.
A coupe of things I should mention.Firstly it was announced tonight that next year's tournament will be on the same weekend. This doesn't make any sense to me as St Andrews are planning to hold their excellent congress either the last weekend in September or the first in October. Both are excellent tournaments that I would love to see flourish but they are shooting themselves in the foot by competing with each other. March is a barren month for chess, could the organisers of Cork and St Andrews not email each other and agree that one tournament is held around now and the other in March?
Secondly, the arbiter announced tonight that the pairings and results could not be posted on the ICU site because of this new data protection crappy law. This is political correctness gone stark raving bonkers. I cannot believe that to publish a draw for a tournament would in any way break the law.How is it that football fixtures can be published as can golf scores, quotes from people, adresses of people who appear in court etc etc etc . If the draw, results and games from a chess tournament cannot be put online then all news reporting and media activity must be illegal. The whole thing really is a joke. IF the data laws are that strict then what's to stop a footballer who scores an own goal or gets sent off from barring SKY and The BBC from showing the incident? I really cannot believe that any law could be that stupid. Maybe the Cork organisers are just a teeny weeny bit paranoid???

Andrew’s can’t move - September/October is the only time the school permits. I imagine it will grow and grow similar to the way Gonzaga did - Ross and Desmond doing great work; particularly with the live boards this year. I think I’d be more worried about Andrew’s being on the heels of 2 Dublin events rather than Cork. With no Olympiad next year (and moved to August for 2020) - planning should be a little easier for the next few years in that regard. Next year it will probably look something like:
CoD: 6-8 September
Blitz/Rapid/AGM: 21-22 (or whatever suits andrews)
Andrew’s: 27-29 September

I’d hope Cork would again be two weeks away if they are sticking to October so 11-13. Then two further weeks to Limerick.

From memory, Cork suffered last time out (in March) because it was up against about 20 LCU fixtures; a freak accident (I think the LCU had even allowed for it but the date moved one week from the original plan). This time it’s up against some LCU fixtures and the Olympiad, while the date-change will always initially cost numbers. 80 is good in the circumstances - well done to Mark and his team.

Galway will be back in March this year so that’s at least one event - and the LCU have a plethora of fixtures then too. It was only 18 months ago that March was one of the most congested months; Galway, Cork, and the NCC.

April will then be congested as usual so we may move the NCC to March like 2017 (tricky though as LCU fixtures are cleared the weekend we originally planned for NCC in April). At the moment it’s:
NCC
Irish Juniors
Easter Open
Last round of LCU Leagues

Discussions do go on in the background between most organisers - but sometimes it just doesn’t suit particular events to take a better or at least more free weekend.

sodacat11

It is great that we have so many fine tournaments. Fixture congestion is a much nicer problem to have than scarcity of tournaments.

Cork now has live games, results and pairings on its own Cork Congress website so perhaps the GDPR paranoia lies elsewhere?

zeitnot

sodacat11 wrote: »

It is great that we have so many fine tournaments. Fixture congestion is a much nicer problem to have than scarcity of tournaments.

Cork now has live games, results and pairings on its own Cork Congress website so perhaps the GDPR paranoia lies elsewhere?

The live games stop after a couple of moves.

sodacat11

I have been complaining about three games on a Saturday for ages and usually I take a bye on the sat night but since I was going well I decided to play tonight,,,,,,,,,,BIG mistake. After 22 moves my advantage was 2.53 and my opponent could barely move any of his pieces then I blundered a pawn followed by a rook soon after. Even my opponent apologized for such a rubbishy game. All we could do at the end was laugh about it. It is not unusual for players of 2000 strength to play like 1300 players in these Saturday night games, they are just a complete farce for most people. The recent survey( albeit not a big one) showed that most people prefer 5 games in a tournament. If organisers persist with six then people will just stop going to tournaments as they get older ( many probably have already).

Past_Pawn_99

sodacat11 wrote: »

I have been complaining about three games on a Saturday for ages and usually I take a bye on the sat night but since I was going well I decided to play tonight,,,,,,,,,,BIG mistake. After 22 moves my advantage was 2.53 and my opponent could barely move any of his pieces then I blundered a pawn followed by a rook soon after. Even my opponent apologized for such a rubbishy game. All we could do at the end was laugh about it. It is not unusual for players of 2000 strength to play like 1300 players in these Saturday night games, they are just a complete farce for most people. The recent survey( albeit not a big one) showed that most people prefer 5 games in a tournament. If organisers persist with six then people will just stop going to tournaments as they get older ( many probably have already).

The preference for 5 rounds is definitely prevalent in us younger players too, atleast within the circles I’m in.

Unfortunate about your loss

sodacat11

Past_Pawn_99 wrote: »

The preference for 5 rounds is definitely prevalent in us younger players too, atleast within the circles I’m in.

Unfortunate about your loss

You'd think that arbiters would welcome it too.

Nothing unfortunate about the loss, we were both tired and making nonsensical moves. Just a matter of who made the final blunder. I am not going to play any more Saturday night games even if I have to default. At least that wouldn't cost any rating points.

sodacat11

Cork was a very well run and pleasant tournament which I enjoyed very much despite being completely off my game. It was sad though not to see Philip Short standing in the doorway of the hotel puffing away contentedly before and after each round or to hear his infectious laugh in the bar at night. It was nice that the organisers called for a few minutes silence at the start of the tournament to remember him.
On a lighter note I must tell you about a humorous and instructive thing that happened in the Major tournament. Some eternal optimist was trying to win with King and Pawn v King and Bishop when his flag fell.The players did not know the rules in this situation (neither did I as it happens) so they agreed a draw ,which is what I would have thought was the correct result, however on appeal the result was overturned and the win given to the guy with the Bishop on the grounds that the other player could have promoted his pawn to a knight then facilitated a kind of self mate by placing his King on a1 and Knight on a2 while his opponent (to move) has his King on c2 and his Bishop on a3. The whole thing seems ludicrous to me, but dem's da rules.

cdeb

Same thing happened one of our players in a foreign tournament (though he had the bishop). Change in the rules a few years back alright. Bit silly, but arguably so is losing on time when you have increments

ComDubh

If they actually agreed a draw, then a draw is the correct result. Perhaps one player claimed the draw, which is a different matter I guess.

The 'mate possible' rule is tough, but it's clear!

sodacat11

ComDubh wrote: »

If they actually agreed a draw, then a draw is the correct result. Perhaps one player claimed the draw, which is a different matter I guess.

The 'mate possible' rule is tough, but it's clear!

I made that very point about agreeing the draw but apparently once the flag falls the game is over, you can't agree a draw after that.

Past_Pawn_99

I think it depends what was noticed first. If the players agreed a draw and then notice the flag had fell its a draw. If they notice the flag had fell and then agree a draw whoever’s flag had fallen loses.

Tim Harding

Past_Pawn_99 wrote: »

I think it depends what was noticed first. If the players agreed a draw and then notice the flag had fell its a draw. If they notice the flag had fell and then agree a draw whoever’s flag had fallen loses.

Correct. FIDE competition rules 5.2.3 and 6.8.

Draw agreement, resignation, checkmate and stalemate all immediately end the game. A flag is considered to have fallen when it is noticed or claimed.
So if any of those modes of ending the game occur before anyone calls a flag fall, the clock is irrelevant.

If the flag is called first, this takes precedence and so you cannot agree a gentlemanly draw once a flag falls.

The player whose flag has been noticed to have fallen loses, unless his opponent cannot checkmate him by any sequence of legal moves.

The hard case above with the B v P is covered by 6.9. That also governs some amusing examples where the player to move, whose flag falls, has only one legal move which brings about immediate checkmate or stalemate. Those cases are also drawn, even if the opponent has "mating material", because no sequence of legal moves could win the game.

sodacat11

Another "hard case" I had once in Australia cost me a high placing in a big tournament and a nice big juicy cheque. In the final round we reached a position after over 60 moves where I had a Ke1,Qf2,pawn d7 and Re8 V Kg8, Rf8, pawns f7,g7,h7 and Qh4 with Black to move. Black has nothing better than a perpetual but instead of accepting a draw he tried to win on time by repeatedly checking me from various squares. All I have to be careful about is that he can't pick up my pawn with a check so I just kept interposing my Queen. There was no increment and we had both long since stopped recording moves but the arbiter was watching and a large crowd of spectators was watching. I tried to claim a draw on the grounds that he was just trying to win on time and then I tried to claim one under the 50 move rule,both claims were rejected and eventually my flag fell and I lost. The arbiter then immediately informed me that we had repeated the same position a number of times and had I claimed a draw by three fold repetition he would have granted it.I thought that you couldn't claim a draw by repetition when we weren't writing down the moves. I still think that if the arbiter witnesses the repetition then that should be enough. Needless to say I was seriously pissed off and even now, thirteen years later, it still rankles when I think about it.
The things that some people do to try and win games really are distasteful and without any kind of honour or integrity. I don't know how they can get any satisfaction by winning with what can only be classed as gamesmanship.
On the other hand I have had situations where I was winning by a huge margin but about to lose on time and my opponent has very sportingly offered me a draw and other games where I was the one getting mashed but my opponents flag was about to fall where I have offered the draw. I think that a draw in those situations is only fair.

cdeb

Fairly sure you can't claim a draw on repetition without noting your moves alright. How would you prove it?

The arbiter can now interpose and call 5-fold-repetition, which implies to me he can't interject for 3-fold-repetition.

I thought protocol in that case was to give both sides two extra minutes to see if any progress could be made.

Much and all as I prefer a proper ticking clock, increments really do make time trouble significantly easier to adjudicate. If your flag falls, you lose, unless your opponent has no mating material (in which case, why did your flag fall?)

mikhail

Tim Harding wrote: »

The hard case above with the B v P is covered by 6.9. That also governs some amusing examples where the player to move, whose flag falls, has only one legal move which brings about immediate checkmate or stalemate. Those cases are also drawn, even if the opponent has "mating material", because no sequence of legal moves could win the game.

Does that mean that any forced mate on the board means a flag fall results in a draw? If Stockfish says it's mate in 25, for instance?

cdeb

That rule tends to cover mate on the board (ie mate in one), no?

mikhail

cdeb wrote: »

That rule tends to cover mate on the board (ie mate in one), no?

If I have forced mate, "no sequence of legal moves could win the game" for the other guy.

sodacat11

cdeb wrote: »

Fairly sure you can't claim a draw on repetition without noting your moves alright. How would you prove it?

The arbiter can now interpose and call 5-fold-repetition, which implies to me he can't interject for 3-fold-repetition.

I thought protocol in that case was to give both sides two extra minutes to see if any progress could be made.

Much and all as I prefer a proper ticking clock, increments really do make time trouble significantly easier to adjudicate. If your flag falls, you lose, unless your opponent has no mating material (in which case, why did your flag fall?)

I suppose after trying to claim the draw in two other ways I should have chanced the repetition claim but it was a very tense and nervy situation at the time after a very long wild game with a lot at stake and a crowd around the board. It wasn't easy to think calmly. As far as I remember the arbiter was writing down the moves.
You are right about the increments, they do improve things a lot both for the players and the arbiters.

cdeb

mikhail wrote: »

If I have forced mate, "no sequence of legal moves could win the game" for the other guy.

Actually, Tim's example was where your only move is mate.

So in your 25 move mate, you'd have moves you could make which weren't mate - so different situation.

Tim Harding

mikhail wrote: »

Does that mean that any forced mate on the board means a flag fall results in a draw? If Stockfish says it's mate in 25, for instance?

No it is only if there is no way to diverge from the line of play that brings about the checkmate/stalemate. If the player whose flag fell has any alternative that doesn't mate it won't apply. There are some bizarre examples on the new FIDE Arbiters Manual but in practice such cases are highly unlikely to arise.

For example:
WHITE Kg6, pawn h6; BLACK rooks f5, f8, Bishop h8, King g8.
White to move, flag falls, what result?
If there were no bishop or either rook was missing, Black would win.
But White has only one legal move: 1 h7 and in this case it is checkmate.
Therefore under the present wording of the rule, no possible sequence of legal moves can lead to a checkmate for Black.
So DRAW! It may seem absurd but that is the effect of the current rules.

Tim Harding

cdeb wrote: »

Fairly sure you can't claim a draw on repetition without noting your moves alright. How would you prove it?

The arbiter can now interpose and call 5-fold-repetition, which implies to me he can't interject for 3-fold-repetition.

I thought protocol in that case was to give both sides two extra minutes to see if any progress could be made.

Much and all as I prefer a proper ticking clock, increments really do make time trouble significantly easier to adjudicate. If your flag falls, you lose, unless your opponent has no mating material (in which case, why did your flag fall?)

The current laws provide for various situations but don't cover all possible situations, especially in rapid and blitz where some very strange things can happen because (unlike classical) it is not always required to restore the last position before an illegal move. (If a legal position arises again: the law was changed to cater for the notorious Carlsen case in the 2017 world blitz.)

Briefly:
a) if there is an increment of 30 seconds or more, you have to write down your moves and claims of repetition or 50 moves are based on that;

b) if there is an increment of less than 30 seconds (as in Bunratty etc.) you are not required to keep score ONCE YOUR TIME GOES BELOW FIVE MINUTES (law 8.4) though you may do so.

c) it is possible to claim a threefold repetition as long as you write down the move that brings it about, or wait until your opponent makes a move that brings it about already. You can then stop the clock and claim, and this is a draw offer. If your opponent doesn't agree to the draw, the claim must be checked if possible.

Yes, if there is an arbiter present and (s)he observes a fivefold position repetition, or 75 moves by each side without pawn move or capture, then the game should be declared drawn at that point. It is not optional for the arbiter if (s)he has observed it. You are right that the arbiter cannot step in earlier unless there is a claim.

The claim would need to be verified either from the opponent's scoresheet (if he has kept a complete score) or by digital board (if one was being used) or else by the two players trying to reconstruct the game from the point where the score was no longer being kept. In practice this may well be impossible but one can try if the opponent is not unreasonable or if there is an arbiter/ team captains to assist and it can be done without disturbing other games still in progress.

Article 8.5.1 says that if neither player is keeping score, then an arbiter or assistant should try to do it. In practice, say at league matches in lower divisions (less than 30 sec increment) or tournaments with no arbiter able to give all his attention to one game, somebody who has finished their game can be deputed to do it.
Realistically, it won't happen unless you see the type of position arising where a claim could come. A blocked ending with little prospect of progress, or if R+B v R or QvR (no pawns) arises, or a player is trying to mate with B and N, then somebody should try to keep track, preferably on a clean scoresheet.

The player who wants a draw can then appeal to the person who is keeping score but incorrect claims add two minutes to the opponent's clock.

Finally, I feel like I am sitting the arbiter exam again. I am not going to discuss the case of games with no increment as this posting is already too long. See the laws, Guidelines III, in the FIDE Handbook.

mikhail

Tim Harding wrote: »

No it is only if there is no way to diverge from the line of play that brings about the checkmate/stalemate.

I get it. A random (legal) move generator has to win/draw every time. So backrank mate in 1 doesn't save me if my flag falls because I could legally play a move other than Rx8#. Strange rule, though I guess the line has to be somewhere.