@Duzzz
He spent more time letting his clock run after the incident and then fussing over it than the incident could possibly have warranted. In my opinion he spent the moments after trying to decide if he was going to try to appeal the incident, not that he was truly disturbed by the actual incident itself from his body language and reaction (notice he didn’t immediately stop the clock and call for arbiter, he reflected some moments after, second guessed himself, then decided to call the arbiter and see if he could benefit from the technicality).
Gamesmanship tries to use any influence possible to get an advantage over your opponent and disregards intention, spirit of rules, ect. I’ve met many persons like that in my life. I refuse to believe that incident truly caused a great disturbance to a grandmaster that he had to appeal against his opponent for it. Replacing the piece didn’t take but a second, on the edge of Nakamura’s corner of the board which hardly blocked the opponents view of the board for that duration. Nakamura caused a minor accident and quickly fixed it (see his body language when he fixes it and afterwards with his hand) which seems more in spirit of the game. Trivial incident at best, and as sportsman we should be the incident shouldn’t have warranted any further thought or action. You could argue Nakamura was disturbed more by his appeal (and the surrounding players) than the actual incident itself. We’re here to play chess, not try to find minor violations our opponent makes outside of the moves to benefit from. Play the game.
-Jordan
He spent more time letting his clock run after the incident and then fussing over it than the incident could possibly have warranted. In my opinion he spent the moments after trying to decide if he was going to try to appeal the incident, not that he was truly disturbed by the actual incident itself from his body language and reaction (notice he didn’t immediately stop the clock and call for arbiter, he reflected some moments after, second guessed himself, then decided to call the arbiter and see if he could benefit from the technicality).
Gamesmanship tries to use any influence possible to get an advantage over your opponent and disregards intention, spirit of rules, ect. I’ve met many persons like that in my life. I refuse to believe that incident truly caused a great disturbance to a grandmaster that he had to appeal against his opponent for it. Replacing the piece didn’t take but a second, on the edge of Nakamura’s corner of the board which hardly blocked the opponents view of the board for that duration. Nakamura caused a minor accident and quickly fixed it (see his body language when he fixes it and afterwards with his hand) which seems more in spirit of the game. Trivial incident at best, and as sportsman we should be the incident shouldn’t have warranted any further thought or action. You could argue Nakamura was disturbed more by his appeal (and the surrounding players) than the actual incident itself. We’re here to play chess, not try to find minor violations our opponent makes outside of the moves to benefit from. Play the game.
-Jordan
Hi Jordan,
You say 'Play the game'.
For them, it's more than a game. It's money. It's their profession. How well they do in this tournament will get them more or less invitations in the future.
So that's different.
Me personally - and it seems you too - wouldn't call an arbiter for this accident.
The only time I've ever called an arbiter was when my opponent didn't write down his moves while I didn't have to write myself anymore (less than a few minutes). I wanted to claim a draw by repetition, but I had no proof myself.
Oh yeah, I've also asked an arbiter to quite the crowds a bit, but that was with the clock running.
But all aside. I see no reason to condemn Zhivalko like the original poster intended. Zhivalko was acting within the rules.
There's some discussion how his played the game afterwards. One could say poorly (for his standards). But that's irrelevant for the matter at hand.
Greetings,
Duzzz
You say 'Play the game'.
For them, it's more than a game. It's money. It's their profession. How well they do in this tournament will get them more or less invitations in the future.
So that's different.
Me personally - and it seems you too - wouldn't call an arbiter for this accident.
The only time I've ever called an arbiter was when my opponent didn't write down his moves while I didn't have to write myself anymore (less than a few minutes). I wanted to claim a draw by repetition, but I had no proof myself.
Oh yeah, I've also asked an arbiter to quite the crowds a bit, but that was with the clock running.
But all aside. I see no reason to condemn Zhivalko like the original poster intended. Zhivalko was acting within the rules.
There's some discussion how his played the game afterwards. One could say poorly (for his standards). But that's irrelevant for the matter at hand.
Greetings,
Duzzz
lmao @Duzzz saying that the rook getting knocked over made him lose concentration when it was put back in place literally faster than it took hikaru to make the actual move.. pretty delusional
@rokoroks : I've seen video proof.
@Duzzz
As professionals, they ought to also act professional as well. There are class act players in every sport, and there are those who aren't class acts. Nothing you've said convinces me it was anything other than gamesmanship- which even if legal is also below the level I'd expect of a professional behaving, and consequently, will condemn the person for.
-Jordan
As professionals, they ought to also act professional as well. There are class act players in every sport, and there are those who aren't class acts. Nothing you've said convinces me it was anything other than gamesmanship- which even if legal is also below the level I'd expect of a professional behaving, and consequently, will condemn the person for.
-Jordan
@jg777 You set a high bar for other people, possibly for yourself as well.
My best wishes for you for the new year is to judge people less harshly.
Duzzz
My best wishes for you for the new year is to judge people less harshly.
Duzzz
Dumbass should have not wasted arbiters time. Glad he got his ass kicked.
I think Sergey should have stopped the clock as soon as Nakamura knocked over the rook, Nakamura should have been given a two minute penalty and then the game continued. Read article 7.4 and 7.5 on handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 The laws are not that crystal clear on this though. I'm a little biased in ruling in favour of Sergey because he plays here on lichess. I think lichess patrons must also take that into consideration while making comments here. As soon as I see a lichess patron, I don't want to criticize anything they say. :D
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.