Время публикации: 15.08.2013 17:49 | Последнее обновление: 16.08.2013 00:07

A lot has been written about the last incident in Wang Hao - Dreev game from Tromso and mainly almost all were wrong. Article 9 of FIDE Handbook surprisingly good and clearly written about the case:

1) If Wang Hao has claimed a draw with Dreev's 68...Bb6 after which the same position appeared over the board 3 times (First was 64...Rc6, Second was 66...Rg1) he did everything correct. In this case he makes a claim about a position which occurs after Dreev's move which was already stated on his scoresheet. In this case he should never be penalised by arbiters and even if they did so as he were on the move he did the right thing to claim a draw due to threefold repetition with Kh5 on 65th, 67th and eventually 69th move.

2) However reports from different sources implies that actually Wang Hao claimed a draw originally and eventually with Kh5 without having written this move down on his scoresheet. Then the arbiters should not have accepted his incomplete claim and penalize him by adding time to Dreev's clock; which they all did. Pretty fine but then since Wang Hao should have lost his right to end up the game he should either still play Kh5 (obviously his intention) or he could pick up any other move and the game should continue. There is an incredible misconduct by the chief arbiter and others (by the way playing chess for along time I do not know these people's faces and names and I am very sure that Dreev does not either) by allowing Wang Hao to finish the game with Kh5.

Watching the game by coincidence over the camera at that time first I really did not understand the case but 2nd possibility is the most probable one when Leong and his henchman trying to convince Dreev with the illogical scenario of theirs to finish the game as a draw.

The important point is that case 1 and case 2 are completely different from each other. In this very case if Wang Hao's claims were based on the first case, he was still lucky to catch another sequence of moves with his Kh5. However imagine an hypothetical example:
White: Kg1, Rf1; Black: Kg3, Rc3.
Now 1...Rf3(1) 2.Re1 Rd3 3.Rf1 Rf3(2) 4.Rd1 Re3 5.Rf1 Rf3(3) and when it is White to move he has no sequence of moves to catch a threefold repetition. It means that his only chance is to claim a draw if his opponent did not do so after 5...Rf3. That is why the rulemakers have separated artcicle 9.2 to "a" and "b" not to merge two cases with each other which would have been a big mistake many has fallen while commenting upon the incident.

The real implication of what has happenned there brings forward who Mr. Leong is!

Even a FIDE Master with an historical rating peak of 2290 according to rating charts and currently 2172 is not up to understand all these finesses during the incident. Couple of questions are immediately arises: How come he became a FIDE Master without going over the 2300 bareer is just one of them. Let us not forget that he holds titles of a FIDE Senior Trainer and International organiser as well.

In reality after running as a candidate for FIDE president and then withdrawing from the elections, he immediately became chief arbiter for Calvia Olympiad of year 2004. Metamorphosis of our era unfortunately replaced Flohr, Gligoric, Kotov, Stahlberg, Lothar Schmid with Ikonomopoulos, Leong and the company (as I have already mentioned) I do not even know the names and I do not even want to know!

The last but not the least instead of this very important case almost everyone's attention was on Cori's forfeit. I would like to say that not only he should be forfeited but also he has to pay a fine by not appearing for a game. Everybody who played at least once in such a qualifier knows that the player undertakes the consequences and accepts also the schedule by signing a contract before the tournament. Albeit, because of a 17 year old kid (by the way his sister also played the event which makes two people) who simply did not show up due to lazyness of kinds is immediately supported by Kasparov and Sutovsky and Zsuzsa Polgar.

For me and many people the case itself is not important but revealed the Appeals Commity: Freeman, Kutin and Yazici. Just like Leong all these people got these spots not because they are competent with the job but because of interbreeding in FIDE!

They have come up with the only and correct decision in Cori's case but what would have happenned if Dreev would have made an appeal?

My prognostics are:
1) Zsuzsa Polgar would not have payed his 500 dollars appeals fee to be deposited.
2) The glorious trio would have supported Leong's decision and Dreev would have lost 500 dollars after all.
3) Conceivably he would not get his 500 dollars back or in other words his fee back like Cori-Polgar's case.
4) Still the case is open but Kasparov-Sutovsky tandem will (would) never mention a single word on Dreev's case!


Смотрите также...