Linares 94 qn: Did Kasparov take back a move?
Arun C. Surendran
take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
Is this true? How can a player do that in a tournament?
Could anybody shed light on this issue?
Thanks!
AC
Arun C. Surendran
>Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
>take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
>press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
Sorry, forgot to mention that this happened during Linares 94.
Joseph Albert
Arun C. Surendran <sure...@siromi.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
>take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
>press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
>
>Could anybody shed light on this issue?
as I understand the facts of this issue:
1. Kasparov played a game against Judit Polgar, and during the game, started
to move a N to a particular square, but realized it was a losing move,
and moved it to a different square instead. the piece touched the bad
square, so he definitely had intent to move it there, and the issue
centers around whether he released the N, or maintained contact.
2. An arbiter ruled or said that Kasparov didn't release the N.
3. Polgar didn't protest or appeal the issue, although the arbiter did not
appear to be watching carefully enough to pass judgment.
4. Ultimately, the arbiter's decision is final, so in this sense, Kasparov
was entitled to move the N to the different square in the game.
5. after the game, Kasparov released a statement that he is certain that he
didn't release the N.
6. someone happened to videotape the event, and looking at the video frames
showed that Kasparov had released the N for about 1/4 second.
J. Albert
alb...@cs.wisc.edu
jalbert@fics
I Am Sumo
another. Spanish television caught this, but because nothing was said by
Polgar (Kasparov later won), nothing happened. Sometimes you don't realize
you've let go of a piece and then grabbed it again... I know of a few
cases...
John Fernandez
AOL: I Am Sumo
Internet: iam...@aol.com
or: John_Fe...@nyo.com
Phone: 212-741-7090
Don Fong
Arun C. Surendran <sure...@siromi.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
>take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
>press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
>
>Is this true?
move, then instantly caught himself and made a better move. but the piece
had left his hand for a fraction of a second. IMHO this violates both the
spirit and the letter of the touch move rule. FWIW, he went on to win
the game.
>How can a player do that in a tournament?
it's called "cheating".
--- don fong
Greg Kennedy
: He (for a split second) released a knight on a poor square and moved it to
: another. Spanish television caught this, but because nothing was said by
: Polgar (Kasparov later won), nothing happened. Sometimes you don't realize
: you've let go of a piece and then grabbed it again... I know of a few
: cases...
Maybe I'm confused, but I believe it is the ARBITER's job to enforce the
rules under FIDE play, as here, not Judit Polgar's....
Nevertheless, the key element is not the result of that game, but the
principle of cheating verses fair play. Upon seeing the videotape after
the game, Garry _could have_ insisted upon a reversal in Judit's favor,
and given his stature the arbiter would have had little choice. But he
didn't, of course. "Winning isn't everything,...."
Greg Kennedy
lhu...@clark.net
>
> Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
> take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
> press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
This seems to be an exageration of the incident as I
remember the story. I believe their were no witnesses
confirm the claim. A video reportedly showed Kasparov's
fingers off the piece for one frame. Isn't "intent" a
part of the touch rule in International Chess Rules?
Is there anyone who actually saw the incident? I too
would like to hear a first hand report.
If the video story is true Kasparov may not have been aware
of the <0.1 second lapse. If he feels wrongly accused
isn't it natural for him to avoid the site and source of
the accusations?
Craig Jefferies #506 @11554
0R 34 04/13 01:36 WWIVNet 11014->11561
0R 34 04/12 21:41 WWIVnet ->11554
Subject: Re: Linares 94 qn: Did Kasparov take back a move?
>>take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
>>press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
>
released for only a fraction of a second--but it reportedly did
happen.) Polgar did not claim foul during the game, reportedly
because she didn't want to make a scene. Kasparov denied doing
this knowingly.
BTW: Did the film ever surface for general public viewing
Greg Kennedy
: sure...@siromi.rutgers.edu (Arun C. Surendran) wrote:
: >
: > Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
: > press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
: This seems to be an exageration of the incident as I
: remember the story. I believe their were no witnesses
: confirm the claim. A video reportedly showed Kasparov's
: fingers off the piece for one frame. Isn't "intent" a
: part of the touch rule in International Chess Rules?
Yow! Your memory is even worse than mine- it was purportedly several
frames adding up to a quarter of a second. And Judit Polgar is an
eyewitness, though none is needed because of the hard evidence on the
videotape. As for "intent", Garry did not claim that he accidently
dropped the knight on the wrong square, he claimed he never let go of it!
Get your alibi straight O.J.! :-) After the tape was revealed he
changed his story to "I wasn't aware I had let go of it" or something to
that effect. But as any strong blitz player knows, a quarter-second is a
long time to spaz out- long enough to spot a better move in fact. The
changed alibi is the key here- I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You
can't prove anything. Oh, you can? Too late! I already won! Ha ha. :-)
: Is there anyone who actually saw the incident? I too
: would like to hear a first hand report.
It appears the arbiter was "asleep." That leaves Judit and Garry "win at
all costs" Kasparov. But then there is the unbiased videotape.
: If the video story is true Kasparov may not have been aware
: of the <0.1 second lapse. If he feels wrongly accused
: isn't it natural for him to avoid the site and source of
: the accusations?
No. It is natural for him to lie, cheat, and win at chess, but why
should he avoid the site where he was caught, now that he knows about the
videocamera? Let's face it: he had completely outplayed Judit in that
game before the slip-up in question. He probably just wants to avoid the
press and their nagging questions regarding that incident. It could throw
off his game (among other things).
: > Is this true? How can a player do that in a tournament?
: > Could anybody shed light on this issue?
Happens all the time. Usually there is no arbiter (in USCF tourneys), and
no camera. So it comes down to one player's word against the other's. In
that case, the game is continued if there are no unbiased witnesses to
settle the issue, with the cheater getting away with it.
Under FIDE rules, the arbiter is supposed to _see_ the event and step in
to enforce the rules. Here the arbiter was taking a snooze :-) , but the
camera was rolling. A major embarassment to world chess- "World Champ
Cheats Youngster - Denies Wrongdoing" - film at eleven.
Greg Kennedy
Michael A Vidaurri
Yes- so it is alleged with videotape proof... Something like 8 frames of 24
per second on film show his hand off the piece barely - how this accuracy
was film in the first place is chilling..."Rentero (who paid you to come
and play) is watching!" Judit is a tremendous fan of blitz - so she knows
the nuances and hunches of things like this - she merely looked up
and around and did not challenge it. In FIDE rules you are penalize if you
are wrong in your accusation, time from your clock. Given Garry the
defendant, would you challenge the organizers to rule against the world champ!
Champ membership has its priviledges! Intimidation - even of organizers
who want you for publicity! It was also time pressure so she had to make
this judgment call fast on to challenge or not... Garry kept a low profile
slipping out of the lead as Karpov zoomed past the rest to win it all.
Wonder how much that tape would go for... Of course, Garry later followed
with a remark saying even the inferior original knight move was still a
drawable position, while many others disagreed....
Steve Kelly
> Yow! Your memory is even worse than mine- it was purportedly several
> frames adding up to a quarter of a second. And Judit Polgar is an
> eyewitness, though none is needed because of the hard evidence on the
> videotape.
I can see it now... The NFL's old 'Instant Replay' rule, thankfully
dead, now coming to chess....
---
Steve Kelly sac...@netcom.com
... Nuclear Power Plants are safer than Ted Kennedy's car.
Nicolo de Groot
|> Yesterday's New York Times (11th April) said that Kasparov did not
|> take part in Linares 95 because he got a lot of flak from the Spanish
|> press for taking a move back in a game against Judith Polgar.
|>
|> Could anybody shed light on this issue?
|>
|> AC
|>
The while issue got a lot of press coverage at the time. Kasparov did take
back te move it seems. Judit claimed that she was to astonished to protest.
The referee was not around. The whole incident was taped, but the tape was
not shown to the public or press. People that saw the tape say that he did
release the piece for a fraction of a second. Kasparov says that he did not
realise that he released the piece at the time and that the press just blew
the minor incident out of proportion.
Nicolo
Tim Mirabile
an umpire/ref making a bad call. It happens all
the time, and yet they still play, and use human
umps. I submit that is Garry took his hand off
the piece, but not long enough for his opponent
or the arbiter to see, too bad, but he gets to
play the piece to a different square. He may
be telling the truth when he says he thought he
didn't release it.
Greg Kennedy
: Every sports fan knows that the camera can catch
But Judit _did_ see it! Chess is not a spectator sport: best to use any
means available to establish the facts. In this case, the videotape was
the "last word". She was cheated.
Greg Kennedy
Eric Peterson
1) Friday April 21, 6pm EDT:
Grandmaster Ilya Gurevich (junior) will be on ICC playing blitz.
Masters will provide commentary. Come watch!
2) Saturday April 22, 3pm EDT:
GRANDMASTER LEV PSAKHIS will be on ICC! He is 2-time USSR Champion and
1994 Blitz Champion of Israel. This will be a MAN VERSUS MACHINE Match!
GM Psakhis (FIDE 2625) will take on a computer program (probably Chess
Genius 3.0 on a Pentium) in a 2-game match with a Game in 30 minutes time
control!
3) Monday April 24, 7pm EDT:
PLAY the MASTER! Do "help PLAYtheMASTER" on ICC for more info. For players
with ICC blitz ratings below 1800.
4) Tuesday April 25, 8pm EDT:
MASTER LECTURE SERIES: FIDE Master Chuck Adelman will present one of his
games. Good instruction for all players below master level.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ALL of the above events can be viewed by ANYONE, registered or unregistered,
on the Internet Chess Club.
The Internet Chess Club can be reached at "telnet CHESS.LM.COM 5000".
There is also a WEB page at: http://www.hydra.com/icc/
email: CHESS.LM.COM
Joseph Albert
Greg Kennedy <gken...@indy.net> wrote:
> But Judit _did_ see it! Chess is not a spectator sport: best to use any
>means available to establish the facts. In this case, the videotape was
>the "last word". She was cheated.
the Arbiter has the last word according to FIDE rules. it doesn't
matter if the Arbiter is wrong, and a videotape proved that later,
the Arbiter's decision is what counts. Polgar could have appealed
the Arbiter's decision if she had chosen to, and she chose not to.
I think touch move should include squares. if you touch a piece and
move it and touch the piece to a square, then you have to move it
to that square whether you release it or not. clearly Kasparov
violated the spirit of touch move as he clearly intended to move
the N to the bad square.
and I think Kasparov really believe that he didn't think he released the
piece at hte time. problem is that his will and drive for winning are
so strong that I don't think it is possible for him to give even himself
an honest, unbiased evaluation of whether he felt he released the piece.
J. Albert
alb...@cs.wisc.edu
Tim Mirabile
> Tim Mirabile (t...@mail.htp.com) wrote:
> : Every sports fan knows that the camera can catch
> : an umpire/ref making a bad call. It happens all
> : the time, and yet they still play, and use human
> : umps. I submit that is Garry took his hand off
> : the piece, but not long enough for his opponent
> : or the arbiter to see, too bad, but he gets to
> : play the piece to a different square. He may
> : be telling the truth when he says he thought he
> : didn't release it.
> But Judit _did_ see it! Chess is not a spectator sport: best to use any
> means available to establish the facts. In this case, the videotape was
> the "last word". She was cheated.
> Greg Kennedy
Yes, but did she claim it? If she did, she could have
used the videotape right there to show that Garry took
his hand off the piece, and force the move to stand.
Once the game is over it's too late to make touch
move type claims. She was cheated, but too bad, the
result must stand.
Loh Weng Keong
--
Calvin Loh
isc4...@leonis.nus.sg
I Am Sumo
go of it, it has to stay there. If it is an illegal move and you correct
it before hitting the clock, there is no penalty. If you hit the clock
afterwards, then your opponent gets 2 more minutes on his clock. (1 minute
in Quick)
Greg Kennedy
: Yes, but did she claim it? If she did, she could have
: used the videotape right there to show that Garry took
: his hand off the piece, and force the move to stand.
: Once the game is over it's too late to make touch
: move type claims. She was cheated, but too bad, the
: result must stand.
Uhgh. We are going in circles now. This was covered before: it is the
ARBITER'S job to enforce the FIDE rules, not the player's. Under USCF
things are different, but that is not relevant here....
Greg Kennedy
Hendrik Makaliwe
Is this the rule used by your chessclub?
Garry would be happy to join :-) :-).
cheers
--
Hendrik Makaliwe
Hendrik Makaliwe
> No, the rule is, if you touch the piece, you have to move it, if you let
> go of it, it has to stay there. If it is an illegal move and you correct
> it before hitting the clock, there is no penalty. If you hit the clock
> afterwards, then your opponent gets 2 more minutes on his clock. (1 minute
~~~~~~~~~~
> in Quick)
Hit the clock after what? After correcting the move? Wouldn't it then be
the same as the previous case (where there is no penalty)? :-)
I guess I know what you *really* wanted to say. Just want to make sure :-).
cheers
--
Hendrik Makaliwe
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
JA> > But Judit _did_ see it! Chess is not a spectator sport: best to
JA> use any >means available to establish the facts. In this case, the
JA> videotape was >the "last word". She was cheated.
JA> the Arbiter has the last word according to FIDE rules. it doesn't
JA> matter if the Arbiter is wrong, and a videotape proved that later,
JA> the Arbiter's decision is what counts. Polgar could have appealed
JA> the Arbiter's decision if she had chosen to, and she chose not to.
That she chose not to does not change the fact that Kasparov
cheated.
For example, traffic cops are perfectly placed to spot traffic
accidents. If I get run over, and the cop does not see it, I
can certainly go find a cop and tell him about it. If, however,
I choose to dust myself off and walk away, that does not change
the physical fact that I have been run over. And if I choose not
to report it and the statue of limitations runs, and the person
can no longer be subject to prosecution for his crime, it still
does not change the fact that it happened. The only open question
is whether it is punishable.
There is, however, one open question. Whether Gary realized right
after that he let go. To this I will say the following:
I have played speed chess many times. And I am sure Gary has played
more. And if I move a piece, I have NEVER failed to know whether I
let go of the piece. Never. Letting go of the piece means that
my muscles have to relax, to let go of the piece, and then they
have to contract to pick them up again.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * I remember Yamit. Do you?
Rodney Hudlow
This is the bottom line of the whole matter. When Kasparov says that
he didn't realize that he let go of the piece, he is lying. Once the video
confirmed the fact then he should have insisted on awarding the game
to Judit. The show of integrity by this action would have far outweighed
the negative aspect of 'losing' the game. But then again, integrity has
never been one of Kasparov's stong points.
Rodney
Mr Brian Williams
tournament after the take back incident very poorly by his standards
losing an absolutely dread ful game against Joel Lautier. So obviously
th incident played on his mind.And in the long run he lost more points
than he gained i suppose.
Mark S. Hathaway
> iam...@aol.com (I Am Sumo) writes:
> No, the rule is, if you touch the piece, you have to move it, if you let
> go of it, it has to stay there. If it is an illegal move and you correct
> it before hitting the clock, there is no penalty. If you hit the clock
> afterwards, then your opponent gets 2 more minutes on his clock. (1 minute
> in Quick)
>
> John Fernandez
I thought it had been settled that he clearly took his hand off the knight
(confirmed by a review of a videotape of the incident), but that GM Judit
Polgar didn't claim anything during the game (supposedly because she didn't
want to cause a fuss in her first tournament with the world champion) and
so there was no claim for the arbiter to judge and no penalty to World
Champion Kasparov. He probably would have gotten away with it anyhow.
Nobody seems to have observed it except Judit. Apparently the arbiter
wasn't looking-on at the moment it occurred (typical).
It was a terrific game on its technical merits too.
Mark S. Hathaway <hath...@marshall.edu>
Tim Mirabile
> Tim Mirabile (t...@mail.htp.com) wrote:
> : Yes, but did she claim it? If she did, she could have
> : used the videotape right there to show that Garry took
> : his hand off the piece, and force the move to stand.
> : Once the game is over it's too late to make touch
> : move type claims. She was cheated, but too bad, the
> : result must stand.
> Uhgh. We are going in circles now. This was covered before: it is the
> ARBITER'S job to enforce the FIDE rules, not the player's. Under USCF
^^^^^^^
> things are different, but that is not relevant here....
> Greg Kennedy
Really? Under USCF the *players* enforce the rules?
Are you saying that if the arbiter in a FIDE tournament
doesn't notice a rules infraction, the player can't
point it out?
I meant that if the arbiter didn't notice that Garry took
his hand off the piece, Judit should have brought it to
his/her attention at the time, and then the arbiter could
have used whatever means to determine whether he did or
not.