Latest Updates:
Normal Topic Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy (Read 3485 times)
Girkassa
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 433
Joined: 04/07/07
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #7 - 04/13/15 at 11:44:07
Post Tools
The next paragraph in 6.2.a makes it even more clear:

A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move.

This rule wouldn't make sense if a player wasn't allowed to make a move before the opponent had pressed the clock. I don't know if this was the wording at the time of the Krush-Zatonskih match, but the way it is phrased now, it looks clear to me that you are allowed to make a move before your opponent has pressed the clock.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Scarblac
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess Addict

Posts: 185
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/17/07
Gender: Male
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #6 - 04/13/15 at 10:06:18
Post Tools
HagenWatch1 wrote on 04/13/15 at 09:53:30:
This is the first time I've heard about a move being "completed" as described here. Is this mentioned in the chess rules book?

In many places. FIDE rules are here: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

Some articles, bolding is mine:

1.1
The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move. A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’.

6.2.a          
During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent’s clock (that is to say, he shall press his clock). This “completes” the move.

Oh wait, near the bottom there is a Glossary, that is clearer:

made: 1.1. A move is said to have been ‘made’ when the piece has been moved to its new square, the hand has quit the piece, and the captured piece, if any, has been removed from the board.

completed move: 6.2a. Where a player has made his move and then pressed his clock.

There are various subtle differences; e.g., if you make an illegal move and then notice it, you can just make another move with the same piece, but if you complete an illegal move then there are penalties. Anything to do with clocks only cares about completed moves.

I was wrong about having to complete your move before you make your next -- currently 6.2.a says that making a move completes the last one, if it wasn't completed yet. Wonder how that is supposed to work with increments, but so it goes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HagenWatch1
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 123
Joined: 04/08/15
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #5 - 04/13/15 at 09:53:30
Post Tools
This is the first time I've heard about a move being "completed" as described here. Is this mentioned in the chess rules book?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Scarblac
Full Member
***
Offline


Chess Addict

Posts: 185
Location: Netherlands
Joined: 09/17/07
Gender: Male
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #4 - 04/13/15 at 08:17:24
Post Tools
FIDE rules make a difference between when a move is "made" and when it is "completed".

Once you let go of the piece and the move is legal, it is "made". Once you have pressed the clock, the move is "completed".

You are allowed to make your move once the opponent has made hers. No need to wait for them to press the clock.

However, you are not allowed to make your move before completing your previous move.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fromper
Senior Member
****
Offline


GrandPatzer

Posts: 378
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 03/12/10
Gender: Male
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #3 - 04/13/15 at 06:38:48
Post Tools
HagenWatch1 wrote on 04/11/15 at 17:16:09:
Incidentally the reason I'm asking about this issue now is because I haven't been able to find any comments on the internet by either GM Yassar Seirwan or WGM Jennifer Shahade on their thoughts on the controversy on what happened in this incident.

Why would you think that those two specific people would have commented on this? There were plenty of comments at the time, but I don't remember from whom exactly. The main one worth noting is the open letter from Krush to USCF.
  

GrandPatzer!!!

1777 peak USCF rating - currently 1620 from coming back rusty
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
DenVerdsligeRejsende
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 269
Location: København
Joined: 05/16/14
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #2 - 04/12/15 at 17:40:28
Post Tools
This is why the US Championship use now DGT clock and boards, I have no idea why they were not using them few years ago. Basically all top tournamdents use them. This is also why increment is used. Players should not have to do these crazy time scrambles Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uhohspaghettio
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 510
Joined: 02/23/11
Re: Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
Reply #1 - 04/12/15 at 16:32:25
Post Tools
Here's a link to the video.



It's too fast for me to even watch, I can't perceive that fast. I think the only way is slow motion.  Wink

Was a nice move at the end, she really made that king fly.  Grin
  

"I don't recall saying good luck."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
HagenWatch1
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 123
Joined: 04/08/15
Irina Krush/Anna Zatonskih chess clock controversy
04/11/15 at 17:16:09
Post Tools
I'd like to go back in time and understand the nature of this controversy. It was in 2008 and there was an Armageddon match between Irina Krush and Anna Zatonskih for the US Women's chess championship on the line.

According to what I've read about this match...Irina Krush had White and 5 minutes on her clock. Anna Zatonskih had 4 minutes on the clock but had draw odds because she had Black. Incidentally the reason I'm asking about this issue now is because I haven't been able to find any comments on the internet by either GM Yassar Seirwan or WGM Jennifer Shahade on their thoughts on the controversy on what happened in this incident.

To me that's puzzling because I would have expected to hear the GM's thoughts on this very public incident since we have captured video of this issue still posted on Youtube. On the video you can see during the time scramble both Irina Krush and Anna Zatonskih furiously moving the pieces and hitting the chess clock. But if my understanding of this controversy is correct...the issue is whether or not WGM Anna Zatonskih was  moving her pieces *before* WGM Irina Krush had the chance to hit the clock while on her time. I have to admit I looked at the video more than once and it's not very clear. But I do think if the assessment is correct then something is wrong.

This issue brings up a few questions.

1. What did the US Chess Federation say about that incident?
2. What did the GM community who saw the video say about it? Were there any public comments by any of the well known GM's who had knowledge about it make any judgement calls as to whether that incident should have led to an investigation on the nature of the chess rules in terms of what constituted a move?

Most importantly has there been any revision on the definition of what is considered a legal move to avoid incidents like that one from happening in the future? Because if I'm not mistaken...according to what I've heard...a legal move is when someone moves the piece and then removes the hand from the piece. But it doesn't say anything about hitting the clock to confirm it's legitimacy. Someone can move a piece and not hit the clock and it's still considered a legal move. If that's true...then why hit the clock? Using this logic...then any chess player could exploit the loophole in the chess rules about making legal moves because according to this interpretation, a move can be made *before* the clock is hit since it only recognizes the removal of the hand from the piece...and not hitting the clock to complete the move.

All of this brings up a final consideration about this controversy because I believe this should move the chess community to making a final decision or moving the issue of the chess clock to the forefront to ensure fairness. If a DGT board can sense moves between players after making their moves...clearly the technology should exist to ensure it keeps tabs on the time for the player so this way there would be no need to hit the chess clock. After all, hitting the chess clock expends precious time for the person making the move.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo