As the arbiter says at 6:58, 75 would have been reached in two additional moves, and at that point he would have stopped the game as a draw. 75 was not reached yet.
@@aniketprasad3128 They are show in the video (0:07 and 4:56). And if you don't believe the video you can look up this game in any of the chess broadcast sites or databases that have it.
@@LordElwe I am not hearing "why can't I claim". What I am definitely hearing is: "How many moves?" "You can claim, I cannot [noise] how many moves" "Why [noise]".
@@LordElwe OK seems like you're right. I think what happened is: the arbiter said "you can claim, I cannot tell you how many moves". Andrey misheard/misunderstood "you can claim" as "you can't claim" and that's why he asked "why can't I claim?". Of course he can claim at any point. At 6:26 the ref stressed again "you can claim! if you want you can claim". Then Andrey says "yes, I want to claim" and then it's declared draw.
Don’t understand why the arbiters are lecturing the player over procedure when they are not following it themselves by stopping the game at 75 moves (with no captures or pawn moves). If they cannot keep track of the count properly how can they expect the players to?
@@terryboland3816 Yes, they do in this case. The arbiter should stop the game if there has been no pawn move or capture for 75 moves. After 50 moves without a pawn move or capture the player must claim the draw, but after 75 moves with no pawn move or capture the arbiter should stop the game.
@@JimGrange. What Terry is saying is that they don't stop at "move 75" (75 moves after last capture or pawn move might be 124, 99, but certainly not 75). :) It's just a joke, I guess
They are not lecturing the player because "they're clever", they're simply explaining him the rule: he cannot ASK for a move count, he can just claim a draw (which if untrue would I think give 1m more to the opponent). That fact that they can't keep track of the count (which at least in this case is untrue, as the arbiter knew very well that they were over 50 moves without a capture) for the 75 move rule does not change anything. In fact, in that case the game is immediately over, even if it continues because no-one notices and a check mate gets delivered at move 76, the game is draw. In the case of the 50 moves rule it does matter instead. Edit: so it does not matter if they do not keep track, because that won't affect the outcome of the game. Furthermore, of course... Arbiters are not competing.
Oh boy!! I'm really impressed that someone took the time to translate that! It's so funny to listen to Mamedyarov's voice without watching him. Lol 😆 greetings from Mexico 🙏⭐️
Boards are electronic, but still no way to compute basic rules like the 50 moves one, and trigger some kind of alert. Well, hardly a surprise actually, considering they often have trouble keeping track of the players moves. It's 2023, chess needs a technology leap.
The fact that you had to keep on eye on the physical board rather than the visual representation to know what was happening during the live streams of the Blitz and Rapid World Championships was so frustrating. It should not be that hard to keep up-to-date, or at the very least keep the recording of the board and the visual representation synchronized. I don't know where the bottleneck lies, but these boards cost almost a thousand dollars and they are not worth it.
I would have thought that displaying the move number on the clock would be a basic feature. They are professional level clocks by DGT, how hard can it be? Every time the players press the button it also increments the move counter. There are many small items of text on the clock display aside from the times, surely a move counter would be extremely useful.
No, the way it works is they figure it out after the game. The arbiter can stop it early if he's there and counting, but it doesn't matter. Here he wasn't counting from the very beginning because he wasn't there from the very beginning.
How are the players expected to keep count of the moves esply. when they are not recording the moves in Rapid and Blitz games? How are they expected to claim a draw after completion of 50 moves when they are neither able to count nor ask the arbiter(s) to count the moves? It means the 50 move rule in Rapid & Blitz games is practically useless. The only sure way out for the players is to wait untll 75 moves are completed when the Arbiter will announce the result as a draw. I think the DGT boards that are being extensively used these days can incorporate an alerting Amber light on the side of the board (without an audio alarm) to signal completion of 50 moves after last capture & probably a Red light to signal completion of 75 moves after last capture.
This is kind of the point. Blitz chess isn't supposed to be easy. There are those who can make good moves and keep track of multiple factors under a time pressure, and those that can't. The player ratings reflect that. Being able to ask the arbiter is just cheating, the 50 move rule is there for the benefit of the player trying to reach the 50 moves, the onus to claim a draw at that stage is on them. By 75 moves its pretty clear that a checkmate is unlikely and the game is not going to wrap up anytime soon, hence why the arbiter will then step in.
@@ciaranocallaghan5113 The 50 move rule is not there for the benefit of the defending player, it is there for the benefit of the tournament so that rounds don't last forever. Only, it wasn't enough because players don't know about it or don't want to count the moves, so they added the mandatory draw 75 move rule on top of it. The very existence of the 75 move rule is an admission of the issues with the 50 move rule that relies on a player claim.
@@LordElwe The 50 move rule still benefits a defending player. There are times where a checkmate is possible to a point where the attacker is unwilling to give up on pressing the other player. Hence, the defending player has the opportunity to force a draw by using evasive skill for long enough to reach 50 moves. At 75 moves with still no real progression towards mate, that's when it becomes less about evasion and more about a circular never-ending game. If you are the defending player at a disadvantage in points/pieces, a draw is most benefitting to you, not the attacker. Hence, the onus to claim a draw is on the defender. It is up to them to take the initiative.
All I heard: "if you want, you can kill him". That would be a close one for Christopher Yoo, he would have been dead on the spot, with these frustrated games.
clocks actually do record moves, in fact i have a digital chess clock from 2010 which does that fucntion but you have to pause it for once and also it only shows the number of moves which were made from the beginning of the game
I feel like it was also Yoo’s fault. Why the heck didn’t he just exchange the rooks and go for the obvious draw position? It was pretty clear that Espineko wasn’t falling for his traps.
Behold the future off chess: two players having spend a lot of time studying the game, end up hitting on a clock once a second untill doomsday. What a spectacle...
6:55 no super referee, "you can't claim [...] you have to claim". And the best thing is that he says that the game must continue when we are at the hundredth moove since the last capture and that it has been 25 mooves that he is doing his job badly because he should have declared the game draw since we is at the hundredth moove since the last capture.
5:48 Esipenko's opponent mentally agree that it is arbiter should say - draw, not the players should claim the draw, as players felt it is way more moves were made to let the arbiter to already declare the draw. But players could just make 3 times same moves to declare the draw, or to just agree, why to play with the arbiter?)
Well basicaly, not every player has to follow the same ruleset. Their presence at the World Championship is often being sponsored either by governmental or private entities, and they have to answer in some form or another to those entities. For example, some players may not have the possibility to accept or engineer a draw in a clear advantageous position.
@@eufrosniad994 That''s only a draw with perfect play. Esipenko had the same exact position a few months ago and won his game, and so did Carlsen. Let's put this another way : why wouldn't you want your players to keep playing if they still have a chance at winning, and don't risk losing?
@@simonleboutte4881 As I said many times now, after the player makes it clear that he knows how to play it perfectly, then there is no point in trying anymore. You saw the same setup repeat itself many times as he tried and tried. At that point, he is being extremely dishonourable in continuing. It’s pointless.
@@eufrosniad994 I'm sorry but you're being completely nonsensical now... Just load this endgame in whatever engine you prefer, and you'll see Esipenko didn't defend in the most accurate way. Therefore, as the attacking player witnessing flaws in the defense, there's no reason to stop the game.
Admittedly I don't follow chess very much (only know a few GM's names), but the only videos I've seen come out of this event have been showcasing ineptitude on behalf of the arbiters. This one not intervening after 75 moves, one arbiter saying that moving a piece with one hand and then clocking with the other is a "warning" and not an "illegal move," and another claiming he was present at a board where they awarded a player +:02 for a friend of his opponent's "screaming" when the arbiter himself said he didn't hear it. Weird, wild stuff FIDE.
"is a warning and not an illegal move" There was no illegal move, the move itself was legal. 'A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 - 3.9' Warning is an optional penalty for mishandling the clock, it's up for arbiter to decide.
Surprised there was no threefold repetition in there. I kept seeing the same position, but was probably one file over each time confusing me. They should have automatic draw at 50 moves without captures or pawn moves though, not sure of the logic of torturing players in time trouble for 25 more moves.
@@radosawkapuscinski2808 There are chessbase positions that can be won in hundreds of moves. I think the real reason for the rule is the extra pressure will likely mean more decisive games through flagging or blunders and fewer draws.
It takes a max of 59 moves with perfect play to guarantee checkmate with R+B against R. There are endgames that require more than 75 moves whcih guaranteed wins with perfect play. Blitz championships should honor FIDE rules.
B.3.2 The player may at any time, when it is his move, ask the arbiter or his assistant to show him the scoresheet. This may be requested a maximum of five times in a game. More requests shall be considered as a distraction of the opponent.
Yes, it is obvious solution, but they have to make new clocks to all FIDE tournaments, perhaps hundreds of thousands . Also there is little more complicated if player played illegal move. Now they just add time to his opponent, but then they also have to wind down move count by one since illegal move does not count. Technically it is still possible, but FIDE has to take initiative to require : regulation clocks must show move count too. If and when it happens - noone knows .
should have been Yoo's move to offer a draw. I mean, they ended up in the same position like 8 times. Why did he have the hope that this would change after a 9th or a 10th round... PS: the arbiters are the worst
How is offering draw better than hoping for a mistake? This makes no sense. It's not his problem, the other player can claim draw if a position was actually repeated 3 times.
@@tomekczajka It is better because you show that you aren’t just concerned about winning. It shows that you want to play with honour and beat the other person giving their best. You aren’t supposed to be waiting for some slip up. Winning is not the number one priority in sport. It is playing and participating honourably. The problem today is that many have forgotten that aspect.
@@eufrosniad994 Chess is a game of mistakes. If you don't want to win because of the other player's mistakes, you might as well offer draw on move 1. You have a strange conception of "honour". There is nothing dishonorable in trying to win at chess because of the other guy's mistake. That's how all games are won, essentially.
@@tomekczajka to answer in the words of the series 'queens gambit': it's sportsmanship. i mean you can ALWAYS hope for a mistake in a drawing position. sorry, but you seem to be a chess beginner.
This all seems a bit silly. If the arbiter isn't allowed to divulge the number of moves made, a player could theoretically claim after every single move until 50 or 75 moves have been made. Just tell the players the damn move count ffs
The penalty for an incorrect 50 move draw claim is that the opponent gets an extra 1 minute on their clock (in blitz), so players will not do this in general.
@@jumbokevin Yeah, Yoo was never going to win this even if he had an hour more than Esipenko. But you also have to be careful that you don't get punished by the arbiter with one of those generic "being disruptive" clauses if you make excessive claims.
@@LordElwe I have two questions. If you make an incorrect claim of the 50 moves rule, you opponent gets an additional minute. But do you get informed what is the current count? My second question is if it's possible to claim a 3fold repetition in blitz.
Tbh the arbiters job isnt the easiest at those huge events with over 100 boards. Here in Austria we just play 1st illegal move loses, because its impossible to have enough arbiters to review claims and set up time boni in case of a wrong claim for multiple ongoing games. The 50 move rule is also a blured line, since theres usually nobody watching these endgames right from the start and counting moves. Usually if defending player stops the clock and claims 50 moves, the attacker agrees. If not, sometimes they can keep playing on forever or until mate. 75 move rule is very rarely enforced, since nobody uses DGT boards except for big events.
I fail to understand the arbiter's position. In the first place, he should automatically intervene after 75 moves (with no pawn move or capture) regardless. Secondly, Esipenko asked the arbiter to count moves for a 50 move claim. Once that request was made, the arbiter should have declared the draw at 50 moves. The arbiter was correct that the player cannot ask for how many moves have been made during the count (i.e. is it 47 moves, or 35 moves, etc.) but that didn't apply here because the arbiter knew he was over 50 moves and should have called it a draw without any further player actions at that point.
this is serious fault of chess clocks. They are digital, so it would be easy to add there number which move player just played. Rapid and blitz is coming more and more popular and games where player writes moves on scoresheet less and less popular. Would be so easy for player to see move count on clock : oh, last capture was on 71st move, now I am going to play 121st, I can claim the draw
I think its a design fault of the DGT ones. At my club we use "cheap" ones that aren't from DGT and they have the number of moves you made. So it's easy to start "counting" at move 60 and just wait until the clock shows 110 for example.
@@Bella-wp7wz They put the Kings at the center of the board to indicate the result of the game. Both kings on the central light squares indicate that white won, while the kings on the dark squares indicate that black won. In case of a draw, players put the kings on the opposite colors, facing each other, as seen in this video.
It's the same, you can cannot claim for the draw before 75 moves.. You also can't ask for the number of moves you played.. Arbiter has to involve and make it a draw at 75th move..
@@LordElwe Yes, but who will count the number of moves in Blitz and Rapid?? You can't ask for the number of moves and also you can't claim for draw before 50 moves.
The player asking about the moves should have told the arbiter that more than 75 moves had been made without a piece being taken. If the arbiters don't enforce the rules then why are they there ?? The arbiter actually mentioned the 75 moves after the game so why did he not enforce that?
White moves, black moves = 1 move? Or white moves, then black moves = 2 moves? When you're counting 50 moves since last capture is it 50 moves for each player? Or 50 moves between the two of them?
Unfair in another game the arbiter without either player asking, stopped the game in same ending after 75 moves. Was torture watching whites terrible technique. He had no clue was just hoping black fell into stupid one move trap. Black played great.
The game is officially a draw after 75 moves without capture. Even if the arbiter doesn't stop the game and the 76th move is mate, the result will still be a draw.
And this would have happened here, but it seems to be miscount. The clip claims that Rd1 was the 75th move, but the arbiter says after the game that “actually, two moves more would have been 75 and I would have stopped the clock”, so he would also have done it on the 75th move. The question is whose count is wrong: either the arbiter miscounted, or the clip is incorrect.
@@LordElwe thanks. Incredible that the arbiter was wrong. I mean, it happens, but it’s unfortunate. Still would not call it unfair, since he thought it was not 75 moves yet. Therefore my point about what happens still stands: it was a miscount. The arbiter would have stopped the game had he counted well. He didn’t intentionally decide to not stop it. That said, the player should not suffer from such an error. According to the first reply here, the game is officially drawn regardless of what happens after the 75th move, including mate. If that is the case, I assume this possible scenario is already addressed. This game then officially ended at Rd1? UPDATE: hey I checked it, and as you say the moves correspond to the clip. Last capture was on move 71 - Rxh5. The notation however continues till the very end, so I am not so sure the first reply is correct. Wouldn’t it stop at 146 if it were so? Or is the notation kept for record purposes but the game officially ends at 146, 75th move after capture? I don’t recall anything about this kind of incident, might need to check the rule book again. If anyone knows, please chime in.
@@kencur9690 Moves are still recorded because the DGT software does not care about the 75 move rule, it is just recording the moves. Here is the relevant rule... FIDE Laws of Chess Article 9: 9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn: 9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times. 9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
They have a clicking device with them. They usually start clicking every 2 half-moves to keep track until the draw. I dunno why this arbitrer didn't start counting even after Esipenko requested.
@@4AneR He did start counting at that point. He counted 73 moves when the draw claim was made. He didn't count a few additional moves that were made before Esipenko asked him to count.
It's been a while since I played chess but back than I also stopped the clock in a tournament to call a judge because the opposing player made an illegal move, which I noticed 2 or 3 moves later. I lost the game because stopping the clock ment surrendering according to the judge. Was this changed or was the judge wrong back than?
You are allowed to stop the clock to call an arbiter (but you will obviously get in trouble if you do this for stupid reasons or too often). There is no point in reporting an illegal move several moves after it has been made, you have to do it immediately.
@@LordElwe I was about 8 years at the time, started playing chess a few months prior. My first tournament, very inexperienced and after we noticed the illegal move we were both unsure how to proceed. So I stopped the clock to call an arbiter. As soon as I came back the opponent stated I have lost because I stopped the clock meaning I surrendered. That left me devastated back than.
You can't claim an illegal move that happened several moves ago. I forget what game it was but I saw someone make an illegal move, the opponent ignore it, then that person claim that the opponent did not claim his illegal move and the other guy was penalized. Stopping clock and calling arbiter must be done right away
@@rainbird2002 This seems strange to me. If you have to call the arbiter for a reason you can stop the clock. You then will be penalize if the claims is not right. At least it works like with the FIDE rules. Otherwise, concerning the claim not made right away it depend of the cadence. In a rapid or blitz game, you lose your right to claim when you touch your piece. If your opponent made an illegal move and you touche the pieces, the illegal move will stay. In standard game, if there is an illegal move, the position should be put back before that the illegal move appears, so you can still claim afterward if you see it later. Not that you cannot claim after the games is ended (for exemple if you see it during analysis)
@@L33TTechReviewer "You can't claim an illegal move that happened several moves ago. " Beware: this is only true for Blitz and Rapid. In classical chess the game is reset to the position before the illegal move (FIDE rules, 7.5.1)
i need someone good at chess to explain to me: if a draw is basically certain, why are they still continuing to make essentially pointless un-winnable moves as fast as possible? like white is clearly up and not really looking for check? and if you know you're basically just playing to get to move 75 and draw, why not just draw? why play out to move 75? i'm sure i'm just generally dumb and not good at chess but im super confused on whats going on here, seems kinda stupid
White is hoping for a blunder (this endgame can be won via a blunder from the defending side), but he probably should have stopped and offered a draw much earlier.
The draw is far from certain. With perfect defense it's a draw, but it's extremely difficult to defend. Some of the strongest players in the world have lost in this position.
Amazing that officials are just watching the two kids playing on and on like this, knowing full well that it is drawn if after hitting 50 moves with no pawn moves (no pawns here anyway) or no captures. The arbiter should step in and end the game. In my last tournament, the arbiter sat nearby watching the last game and declared the game drawn as soon as the 50 move conditions were met. I guess they were waiting for the kids to die of old age before stepping in.
Arguably yes--spectators should not be communicating with the players. Though the spectator should be punished and not the player if it came to that. But in this case it doesn't really matter because the game was already drawn.
This doesn't look nice to me who just knows how the pieces move. I know chess is a brilliant strategy and mental game, still I don't like seeing this chase around the board and nothing happening.
Доски электронные, но по-прежнему нет способа вычислить базовые правила, такие как 50 ходов, и вызвать какое-то оповещение. Что ж, на самом деле это неудивительно, учитывая, что у них часто возникают проблемы с отслеживанием ходов игроков. Сейчас 2023 год, шахматам нужен технологический скачок.Кто-то сказал ( может сам Есипенко) , что насчитал уже 200 ходов.
I'm a complete noob at chess and don't understand much about the complicated rules but I must say every vid of abirtors they seem so confusing and make things worse
White( the player with bishop) doesn't want to trade rook. So the black player cant do anything. If there is no stop The game could go on forever if nobody make mistake
It is indeed a theoretically drawn endgame. But theory doesn't always pan out and players can blunder under pressure. Esipenko himself beat Vincent Keymer on the other side of this "drawn" endgame in one of the CCT tournaments last year.
It is a theoretical draw so there is no forced win. You can only keep applying pressure and hope the weaker side blunders. Actually, Esipenko himself had this endgame on the stronger side against Vincent Keymer in Airthings Masters 2022 and won it, I think two moves before it would have been a 50 move draw.
Christopher yoo is actually very immature chess player,i mean Andrey offers a draw multiple time by exchanging the rook ,but he wont do that, he done this thing with hari too ,
I remember that it was tried on some tournaments years ago but then it reverted to the traditional scoring system. I guess players didn't like it that much.
Blitz is complete nonsense, and all the problems that occurred during this championship is a proof. I think federation should just stop organizing this kind of competition. This is just spoiling chess itself. Honestly, who can find any interest in this endgame ?
What a rubbish arbiter. Other videos also show that the whole bunch of Fide arbiter at the tournament are completely weak. He should be coordinating the game but he looked like he was lost
The rule is that the first player to get too thirsty and pass out loses the game.
LMFAO
huh, same rule as drunk chess!
Except when Grischuk plays, then the first one who passes out wins.
As soon as 75 moves were made, the arbiter should have intervened and stopped the game as a draw.
intern arbiter..
As the arbiter says at 6:58, 75 would have been reached in two additional moves, and at that point he would have stopped the game as a draw. 75 was not reached yet.
@@ArgentineTangoRadio Incorrect. In this game, the last capture was made on move 71, and Esipenko stopped the clock on move 159. More than 75 moves.
@@LordElwe where do you see move numbers btw??
@@aniketprasad3128 They are show in the video (0:07 and 4:56). And if you don't believe the video you can look up this game in any of the chess broadcast sites or databases that have it.
Also I think the arbiter confused Esipenko by first saying “you cannot claim” instead of “you cannot ask for a count”
I think he said "you can claim".
@@tomekczajka No, because Esipenko's immediate response to him was "Why can't I claim?"
@@LordElwe I am not hearing "why can't I claim". What I am definitely hearing is: "How many moves?" "You can claim, I cannot [noise] how many moves" "Why [noise]".
@@tomekczajka 5:57 "Why can't I claim?"
@@LordElwe OK seems like you're right. I think what happened is: the arbiter said "you can claim, I cannot tell you how many moves". Andrey misheard/misunderstood "you can claim" as "you can't claim" and that's why he asked "why can't I claim?". Of course he can claim at any point. At 6:26 the ref stressed again "you can claim! if you want you can claim". Then Andrey says "yes, I want to claim" and then it's declared draw.
Don’t understand why the arbiters are lecturing the player over procedure when they are not following it themselves by stopping the game at 75 moves (with no captures or pawn moves). If they cannot keep track of the count properly how can they expect the players to?
Games don't stop at 75 moves.
@@terryboland3816 It does if there was no capture or a pawn move
@@terryboland3816 Yes, they do in this case. The arbiter should stop the game if there has been no pawn move or capture for 75 moves. After 50 moves without a pawn move or capture the player must claim the draw, but after 75 moves with no pawn move or capture the arbiter should stop the game.
@@JimGrange. What Terry is saying is that they don't stop at "move 75" (75 moves after last capture or pawn move might be 124, 99, but certainly not 75). :) It's just a joke, I guess
They are not lecturing the player because "they're clever", they're simply explaining him the rule: he cannot ASK for a move count, he can just claim a draw (which if untrue would I think give 1m more to the opponent). That fact that they can't keep track of the count (which at least in this case is untrue, as the arbiter knew very well that they were over 50 moves without a capture) for the 75 move rule does not change anything. In fact, in that case the game is immediately over, even if it continues because no-one notices and a check mate gets delivered at move 76, the game is draw. In the case of the 50 moves rule it does matter instead.
Edit: so it does not matter if they do not keep track, because that won't affect the outcome of the game.
Furthermore, of course... Arbiters are not competing.
6:06 - for those who do not speak Russian Shakh Mamediarov said to Esipenko: “Andrey, I’ve counted 200 moves”
Yes this seems like a clear case of cheating -- advising Andrey to claim draw, which he then did.
@@tomekczajka Yeah, I'm sure he claimed the draw on the basis of the joke 200 move count
Oh boy!! I'm really impressed that someone took the time to translate that! It's so funny to listen to Mamedyarov's voice without watching him. Lol 😆 greetings from Mexico 🙏⭐️
@@tomekczajka лечись клоун
No, Baadur Jobava)
Boards are electronic, but still no way to compute basic rules like the 50 moves one, and trigger some kind of alert.
Well, hardly a surprise actually, considering they often have trouble keeping track of the players moves.
It's 2023, chess needs a technology leap.
i think that could cause disturbance to the players
@@171_indranildutta6, At least they could have had that information displayed somewhere that is available to the player.
@@callmeandoru2627 yeah they can do that
The fact that you had to keep on eye on the physical board rather than the visual representation to know what was happening during the live streams of the Blitz and Rapid World Championships was so frustrating. It should not be that hard to keep up-to-date, or at the very least keep the recording of the board and the visual representation synchronized. I don't know where the bottleneck lies, but these boards cost almost a thousand dollars and they are not worth it.
I would have thought that displaying the move number on the clock would be a basic feature. They are professional level clocks by DGT, how hard can it be? Every time the players press the button it also increments the move counter. There are many small items of text on the clock display aside from the times, surely a move counter would be extremely useful.
they should have intervened when 75 moves were reached. well done fide arbiters!
No, the way it works is they figure it out after the game. The arbiter can stop it early if he's there and counting, but it doesn't matter. Here he wasn't counting from the very beginning because he wasn't there from the very beginning.
That young kid standing there waiting to start a controversy..
How are the players expected to keep count of the moves esply. when they are not recording the moves in Rapid and Blitz games? How are they expected to claim a draw after completion of 50 moves when they are neither able to count nor ask the arbiter(s) to count the moves? It means the 50 move rule in Rapid & Blitz games is practically useless. The only sure way out for the players is to wait untll 75 moves are completed when the Arbiter will announce the result as a draw. I think the DGT boards that are being extensively used these days can incorporate an alerting Amber light on the side of the board (without an audio alarm) to signal completion of 50 moves after last capture & probably a Red light to signal completion of 75 moves after last capture.
exactly. Anyone with common sense would be able to point this out. But they failed to take it into consideration
The clock should show the move counts. This is insane.
This is kind of the point. Blitz chess isn't supposed to be easy. There are those who can make good moves and keep track of multiple factors under a time pressure, and those that can't. The player ratings reflect that. Being able to ask the arbiter is just cheating, the 50 move rule is there for the benefit of the player trying to reach the 50 moves, the onus to claim a draw at that stage is on them. By 75 moves its pretty clear that a checkmate is unlikely and the game is not going to wrap up anytime soon, hence why the arbiter will then step in.
@@ciaranocallaghan5113 The 50 move rule is not there for the benefit of the defending player, it is there for the benefit of the tournament so that rounds don't last forever. Only, it wasn't enough because players don't know about it or don't want to count the moves, so they added the mandatory draw 75 move rule on top of it. The very existence of the 75 move rule is an admission of the issues with the 50 move rule that relies on a player claim.
@@LordElwe The 50 move rule still benefits a defending player. There are times where a checkmate is possible to a point where the attacker is unwilling to give up on pressing the other player. Hence, the defending player has the opportunity to force a draw by using evasive skill for long enough to reach 50 moves. At 75 moves with still no real progression towards mate, that's when it becomes less about evasion and more about a circular never-ending game. If you are the defending player at a disadvantage in points/pieces, a draw is most benefitting to you, not the attacker. Hence, the onus to claim a draw is on the defender. It is up to them to take the initiative.
All I heard: "if you want, you can kill him". That would be a close one for Christopher Yoo, he would have been dead on the spot, with these frustrated games.
Hikaru and Magnus would have already shook hand for a draw based on the opening 3 moves itself, let alone going till the end game.
Perhaps for tournaments they need a clock that also records the number of moves.
clocks actually do record moves, in fact i have a digital chess clock from 2010 which does that fucntion but you have to pause it for once and also it only shows the number of moves which were made from the beginning of the game
Those arbiters want esipenko and yoo play till death lol
No they need to play it out,till the clock runs to zero..they totally right..normaly black shut loose if stop it..🤔
@@ricksworlddereaux2397 Clock will never run down with increment lol. And you are allowed to stop the clock to call an arbiter
As opposed to "sudden death", they prefer "prolonged death" format
🤣
I feel like it was also Yoo’s fault. Why the heck didn’t he just exchange the rooks and go for the obvious draw position? It was pretty clear that Espineko wasn’t falling for his traps.
Behold the future off chess: two players having spend a lot of time studying the game, end up hitting on a clock once a second untill doomsday. What a spectacle...
4:10 Esipenko looking after the clock to make sure it doesn't run away 😀
6:55 no super referee, "you can't claim [...] you have to claim".
And the best thing is that he says that the game must continue when we are at the hundredth moove since the last capture and that it has been 25 mooves that he is doing his job badly because he should have declared the game draw since we is at the hundredth moove since the last capture.
In the middle of the video I got a call, forgot to pause, talked a bit, came back and they still moving pieces around like anyone could win lol
Nobody could win that game... unless someone blundered their rook there was no way it wasn't drawn
5:48 Esipenko's opponent mentally agree that it is arbiter should say - draw, not the players should claim the draw, as players felt it is way more moves were made to let the arbiter to already declare the draw.
But players could just make 3 times same moves to declare the draw, or to just agree, why to play with the arbiter?)
Well basicaly, not every player has to follow the same ruleset. Their presence at the World Championship is often being sponsored either by governmental or private entities, and they have to answer in some form or another to those entities.
For example, some players may not have the possibility to accept or engineer a draw in a clear advantageous position.
@@simonleboutte4881 But this guy Yoo clearly had a draw on his hands.
@@eufrosniad994 That''s only a draw with perfect play. Esipenko had the same exact position a few months ago and won his game, and so did Carlsen.
Let's put this another way : why wouldn't you want your players to keep playing if they still have a chance at winning, and don't risk losing?
@@simonleboutte4881 As I said many times now, after the player makes it clear that he knows how to play it perfectly, then there is no point in trying anymore. You saw the same setup repeat itself many times as he tried and tried. At that point, he is being extremely dishonourable in continuing. It’s pointless.
@@eufrosniad994 I'm sorry but you're being completely nonsensical now...
Just load this endgame in whatever engine you prefer, and you'll see Esipenko didn't defend in the most accurate way.
Therefore, as the attacking player witnessing flaws in the defense, there's no reason to stop the game.
Admittedly I don't follow chess very much (only know a few GM's names), but the only videos I've seen come out of this event have been showcasing ineptitude on behalf of the arbiters. This one not intervening after 75 moves, one arbiter saying that moving a piece with one hand and then clocking with the other is a "warning" and not an "illegal move," and another claiming he was present at a board where they awarded a player +:02 for a friend of his opponent's "screaming" when the arbiter himself said he didn't hear it. Weird, wild stuff FIDE.
Totally agree.
"is a warning and not an illegal move" There was no illegal move, the move itself was legal. 'A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 - 3.9'
Warning is an optional penalty for mishandling the clock, it's up for arbiter to decide.
Why should the arbiter intervene at 75the move? Many games go beyond that. May be you are referring to the 50 move rule? Not clear.
@@lalappanlolappan2605 75 move is an additional rule, almost the same as the 50 rule, and arbiters can call it (no pawn moves or captures).
@@dmaxpr When the game is drawn at 50th move (without capture of pawn move), why wait until 75th move to impose the same decision?
Surprised there was no threefold repetition in there. I kept seeing the same position, but was probably one file over each time confusing me. They should have automatic draw at 50 moves without captures or pawn moves though, not sure of the logic of torturing players in time trouble for 25 more moves.
There is actually a point for this rule. Many endgames are win in more than 50 moves and less than 75 moves.
@@radosawkapuscinski2808 There are chessbase positions that can be won in hundreds of moves. I think the real reason for the rule is the extra pressure will likely mean more decisive games through flagging or blunders and fewer draws.
It takes a max of 59 moves with perfect play to guarantee checkmate with R+B against R. There are endgames that require more than 75 moves whcih guaranteed wins with perfect play. Blitz championships should honor FIDE rules.
B.3.2 The player may at any time, when it is his move, ask the arbiter or his assistant
to show him the scoresheet. This may be requested a maximum of five times in
a game. More requests shall be considered as a distraction of the opponent.
For those who wonder what jobava said to esipenko, he said: andrey i counted 200 move 🤣
Time stamp?
@@Whatever-sy7hv - 6:06
Jobava always the best
Why not to show the number of the move on the digital clock?
Yes, it is obvious solution, but they have to make new clocks to all FIDE tournaments, perhaps hundreds of thousands . Also there is little more complicated if player played illegal move. Now they just add time to his opponent, but then they also have to wind down move count by one since illegal move does not count. Technically it is still possible, but FIDE has to take initiative to require : regulation clocks must show move count too. If and when it happens - noone knows .
@stagna1959 that's a very easy task for engineers. Source: I'm an engineer
This is a purely judicial mistake, and the judge is trying to mask his miscalculation by accusing the grandmaster, the judge on soap.
I am pretty sure they had a position repeated 3 times during this game, not only 50 "resultless" moves.
should have been Yoo's move to offer a draw. I mean, they ended up in the same position like 8 times. Why did he have the hope that this would change after a 9th or a 10th round... PS: the arbiters are the worst
Exactly! I am surprised people are blaming the arbiters. While they could do better, the Yoo guy was wasting time.
How is offering draw better than hoping for a mistake? This makes no sense. It's not his problem, the other player can claim draw if a position was actually repeated 3 times.
@@tomekczajka It is better because you show that you aren’t just concerned about winning. It shows that you want to play with honour and beat the other person giving their best. You aren’t supposed to be waiting for some slip up. Winning is not the number one priority in sport. It is playing and participating honourably. The problem today is that many have forgotten that aspect.
@@eufrosniad994 Chess is a game of mistakes. If you don't want to win because of the other player's mistakes, you might as well offer draw on move 1.
You have a strange conception of "honour". There is nothing dishonorable in trying to win at chess because of the other guy's mistake. That's how all games are won, essentially.
@@tomekczajka to answer in the words of the series 'queens gambit': it's sportsmanship. i mean you can ALWAYS hope for a mistake in a drawing position. sorry, but you seem to be a chess beginner.
This all seems a bit silly. If the arbiter isn't allowed to divulge the number of moves made, a player could theoretically claim after every single move until 50 or 75 moves have been made. Just tell the players the damn move count ffs
The penalty for an incorrect 50 move draw claim is that the opponent gets an extra 1 minute on their clock (in blitz), so players will not do this in general.
But I agree that expecting the players to count the moves during blitz or guess the count is stupid
@@LordElwe Oh I didn't realise there was a penalty for a wrong claim. In this endgame though, I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep claiming
@@jumbokevin Yeah, Yoo was never going to win this even if he had an hour more than Esipenko. But you also have to be careful that you don't get punished by the arbiter with one of those generic "being disruptive" clauses if you make excessive claims.
@@LordElwe I have two questions. If you make an incorrect claim of the 50 moves rule, you opponent gets an additional minute. But do you get informed what is the current count? My second question is if it's possible to claim a 3fold repetition in blitz.
Tbh the arbiters job isnt the easiest at those huge events with over 100 boards. Here in Austria we just play 1st illegal move loses, because its impossible to have enough arbiters to review claims and set up time boni in case of a wrong claim for multiple ongoing games. The 50 move rule is also a blured line, since theres usually nobody watching these endgames right from the start and counting moves. Usually if defending player stops the clock and claims 50 moves, the attacker agrees. If not, sometimes they can keep playing on forever or until mate. 75 move rule is very rarely enforced, since nobody uses DGT boards except for big events.
Is this an issue with the arbiters or am I not understanding correctly?
Apparently the arbiters should had declared draw after the 75 move without capture or pawn move
I fail to understand the arbiter's position. In the first place, he should automatically intervene after 75 moves (with no pawn move or capture) regardless. Secondly, Esipenko asked the arbiter to count moves for a 50 move claim. Once that request was made, the arbiter should have declared the draw at 50 moves. The arbiter was correct that the player cannot ask for how many moves have been made during the count (i.e. is it 47 moves, or 35 moves, etc.) but that didn't apply here because the arbiter knew he was over 50 moves and should have called it a draw without any further player actions at that point.
this is serious fault of chess clocks. They are digital, so it would be easy to add there number which move player just played. Rapid and blitz is coming more and more popular and games where player writes moves on scoresheet less and less popular. Would be so easy for player to see move count on clock : oh, last capture was on 71st move, now I am going to play 121st, I can claim the draw
I think its a design fault of the DGT ones.
At my club we use "cheap" ones that aren't from DGT and they have the number of moves you made. So it's easy to start "counting" at move 60 and just wait until the clock shows 110 for example.
Arbiter was fine, amiable even. Andrey was just fighting for his life, needed a moment to get out of the fight-or-flight.
Why not have a electronic arbiter?
Didn't they reach the same position 3 times? I'm thinking of the position with the rook, the bishop and the two kings aligned
Why do they put a chess piece forward at the end of the game? I’m curious
@@Bella-wp7wz They put the Kings at the center of the board to indicate the result of the game. Both kings on the central light squares indicate that white won, while the kings on the dark squares indicate that black won. In case of a draw, players put the kings on the opposite colors, facing each other, as seen in this video.
It's the same, you can cannot claim for the draw before 75 moves.. You also can't ask for the number of moves you played.. Arbiter has to involve and make it a draw at 75th move..
You can claim a draw at 50 moves. It is automatically a draw at 75 moves, regardless of what the arbiter does.
@@LordElwe Yes, but who will count the number of moves in Blitz and Rapid?? You can't ask for the number of moves and also you can't claim for draw before 50 moves.
@@kirthikanthn7834 Players can guess that it's been 50+ moves, but I agree that the situation is dumb
@@kirthikanthn7834 You can claim for a draw and get told no.
@@LordElwe why 75 and not 80?
The clock should have a counter that increments every time white player press his button so the players can see the number of moves.
The player asking about the moves should have told the arbiter that more than 75 moves had been made without a piece being taken. If the arbiters don't enforce the rules then why are they there ?? The arbiter actually mentioned the 75 moves after the game so why did he not enforce that?
White moves, black moves = 1 move?
Or white moves, then black moves = 2 moves?
When you're counting 50 moves since last capture is it 50 moves for each player? Or 50 moves between the two of them?
50 moves for each, really 100 moves.
Look at clock the number of move are mentioned in the clock when you press it
There was surely some three fold repetitions in there as well.
Why didn't Esipenko press plus to see the number of moves? Is it prohibited?
Can’t the player offer his opponent a draw?
That was clearly a draw all the time, at this level I wonder why Woo who thought he was going to win did not concede to a draw. Poor gamesmanship
They make mistakes under time pressure
This isn't your local tournament he's waiting for opponent to blunder
Rook + Bishop vs Rook is played for a win at high levels..it's a theoretical draw but can be difficult to hold in practise.
Dont those clocks have move count on them? Mine does
Unfair in another game the arbiter without either player asking, stopped the game in same ending after 75 moves. Was torture watching whites terrible technique. He had no clue was just hoping black fell into stupid one move trap. Black played great.
The game is officially a draw after 75 moves without capture. Even if the arbiter doesn't stop the game and the 76th move is mate, the result will still be a draw.
And this would have happened here, but it seems to be miscount. The clip claims that Rd1 was the 75th move, but the arbiter says after the game that “actually, two moves more would have been 75 and I would have stopped the clock”, so he would also have done it on the 75th move. The question is whose count is wrong: either the arbiter miscounted, or the clip is incorrect.
@@kencur9690 The arbiter was wrong. You can look up this game and confirm the moves mentioned in the clip
@@LordElwe thanks. Incredible that the arbiter was wrong. I mean, it happens, but it’s unfortunate. Still would not call it unfair, since he thought it was not 75 moves yet. Therefore my point about what happens still stands: it was a miscount. The arbiter would have stopped the game had he counted well. He didn’t intentionally decide to not stop it.
That said, the player should not suffer from such an error. According to the first reply here, the game is officially drawn regardless of what happens after the 75th move, including mate. If that is the case, I assume this possible scenario is already addressed. This game then officially ended at Rd1?
UPDATE: hey I checked it, and as you say the moves correspond to the clip. Last capture was on move 71 - Rxh5. The notation however continues till the very end, so I am not so sure the first reply is correct. Wouldn’t it stop at 146 if it were so? Or is the notation kept for record purposes but the game officially ends at 146, 75th move after capture? I don’t recall anything about this kind of incident, might need to check the rule book again. If anyone knows, please chime in.
@@kencur9690 Moves are still recorded because the DGT software does not care about the 75 move rule, it is just recording the moves. Here is the relevant rule... FIDE Laws of Chess Article 9:
9.6
If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
9.6.1
the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.
9.6.2
any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
Why not why he can't ask how many moves had been played ?
what kind of arbiter is that, its a clear 50 move rule
Player with Dan hardy voice: " *STOP THE FIGHT* "
This guy: no u
I love how these arbiters abide to the rules.
does the arbibitor have a live move counter with him? how can he know the move count so quickly?
They have a clicking device with them. They usually start clicking every 2 half-moves to keep track until the draw. I dunno why this arbitrer didn't start counting even after Esipenko requested.
@@4AneR He did start counting at that point. He counted 73 moves when the draw claim was made. He didn't count a few additional moves that were made before Esipenko asked him to count.
It's been a while since I played chess but back than I also stopped the clock in a tournament to call a judge because the opposing player made an illegal move, which I noticed 2 or 3 moves later. I lost the game because stopping the clock ment surrendering according to the judge. Was this changed or was the judge wrong back than?
You are allowed to stop the clock to call an arbiter (but you will obviously get in trouble if you do this for stupid reasons or too often). There is no point in reporting an illegal move several moves after it has been made, you have to do it immediately.
@@LordElwe I was about 8 years at the time, started playing chess a few months prior. My first tournament, very inexperienced and after we noticed the illegal move we were both unsure how to proceed. So I stopped the clock to call an arbiter. As soon as I came back the opponent stated I have lost because I stopped the clock meaning I surrendered.
That left me devastated back than.
You can't claim an illegal move that happened several moves ago. I forget what game it was but I saw someone make an illegal move, the opponent ignore it, then that person claim that the opponent did not claim his illegal move and the other guy was penalized. Stopping clock and calling arbiter must be done right away
@@rainbird2002 This seems strange to me. If you have to call the arbiter for a reason you can stop the clock. You then will be penalize if the claims is not right.
At least it works like with the FIDE rules.
Otherwise, concerning the claim not made right away it depend of the cadence. In a rapid or blitz game, you lose your right to claim when you touch your piece. If your opponent made an illegal move and you touche the pieces, the illegal move will stay.
In standard game, if there is an illegal move, the position should be put back before that the illegal move appears, so you can still claim afterward if you see it later. Not that you cannot claim after the games is ended (for exemple if you see it during analysis)
@@L33TTechReviewer "You can't claim an illegal move that happened several moves ago. " Beware: this is only true for Blitz and Rapid. In classical chess the game is reset to the position before the illegal move (FIDE rules, 7.5.1)
If a clock doesn't show the move counts it should be smashed.
i need someone good at chess to explain to me: if a draw is basically certain, why are they still continuing to make essentially pointless un-winnable moves as fast as possible? like white is clearly up and not really looking for check? and if you know you're basically just playing to get to move 75 and draw, why not just draw? why play out to move 75? i'm sure i'm just generally dumb and not good at chess but im super confused on whats going on here, seems kinda stupid
White is hoping for a blunder (this endgame can be won via a blunder from the defending side), but he probably should have stopped and offered a draw much earlier.
The draw is far from certain. With perfect defense it's a draw, but it's extremely difficult to defend. Some of the strongest players in the world have lost in this position.
everyone know the rules except for the referee
Change the arbiters and get better trained ones. Simple solution!
Live is follow existing events!
I would use a click counter on every move and will not call it cheating!
They can use the captured pieces as a counting device.
All these arbiters are truly high
Amazing that officials are just watching the two kids playing on and on like this, knowing full well that it is drawn if after hitting 50 moves with no pawn moves (no pawns here anyway) or no captures. The arbiter should step in and end the game. In my last tournament, the arbiter sat nearby watching the last game and declared the game drawn as soon as the 50 move conditions were met. I guess they were waiting for the kids to die of old age before stepping in.
This is a championship?
Here they come again!
Why is that guy laughing? Was he expecting them to play for an hour? Wtf, at least tell him to claim the draw or something
6:05 A spectator gives a count to Andrey in Russian (jokingly says "200", but still) -- isn't that cheating?
Arguably yes--spectators should not be communicating with the players. Though the spectator should be punished and not the player if it came to that. But in this case it doesn't really matter because the game was already drawn.
Why does the clock time just keep hovering at the same time?
They get a little time added each turn, so as long as they don't take too long on each turn then the game could go on forever.
This doesn't look nice to me who just knows how the pieces move. I know chess is a brilliant strategy and mental game, still I don't like seeing this chase around the board and nothing happening.
Доски электронные, но по-прежнему нет способа вычислить базовые правила, такие как 50 ходов, и вызвать какое-то оповещение.
Что ж, на самом деле это неудивительно, учитывая, что у них часто возникают проблемы с отслеживанием ходов игроков.
Сейчас 2023 год, шахматам нужен технологический скачок.Кто-то сказал ( может сам Есипенко) , что насчитал уже 200 ходов.
Belt? Slipper? Also premium options
Just for my information : at 3:35 Could white player put his tower between the black King and the white bishop ?
Yes, he could. But nothing would change. It's still a draw
Sure, but white wants to win, not draw.
Yes and what then? Try to checkmate with king and bishop?
@@evergrey4life955 its impossible to checkmate with king and bishop
Thanks for the answers. I am just casually watching chess. I had no clue the bishop / king combo cant check mate
Arbiters where quite weak in this tournament to say the least…
Dude focusing on the board like they're not in a dead draw lmao.
If you make a wrong claim?
Opponent gets extra time on their clock (1 minute for blitz I believe)
Is this a book draw ?
The wally is telling them to play on, wtf.
I'm a complete noob at chess and don't understand much about the complicated rules but I must say every vid of abirtors they seem so confusing and make things worse
referee should stop the game
Why doesn't this thing that they tap after each turn keep track of the amount of moves too. ez
Why 75 that's a crazy number
I'm very new to chess. Would someone explain to me why they wouldn't trade rooks or offer a draw at all? Surely this is a completely drawn endgame.
White( the player with bishop) doesn't want to trade rook. So the black player cant do anything. If there is no stop The game could go on forever if nobody make mistake
It is indeed a theoretically drawn endgame. But theory doesn't always pan out and players can blunder under pressure. Esipenko himself beat Vincent Keymer on the other side of this "drawn" endgame in one of the CCT tournaments last year.
I think it is unbelievable that top players ignore the rules!
Damn, this last longer than Giannis Free Throws
Why not just agree to a draw?
Chess or self induced torture
I thought they are gonna play forever
So, how do you force a win?
On youtube there is a video called "Carlsen vs Svidler Rook and bishop vs rook". Carlsen beats Svidler in this situation
It is a theoretical draw so there is no forced win. You can only keep applying pressure and hope the weaker side blunders. Actually, Esipenko himself had this endgame on the stronger side against Vincent Keymer in Airthings Masters 2022 and won it, I think two moves before it would have been a 50 move draw.
why dont people play on computers??? instead of a board?
becaiuse this is real chess.
Terrible to see, how bad the arbiters were at the WORLDCHAMPIONSHIP. Just awkward!
Bring back classical time limit Chess.
This is a little silly. Why not just agree to a draw in a position like that?
These arbiters are the most unprofessional judging group I have seen in any sport or game
Christopher yoo is actually very immature chess player,i mean Andrey offers a draw multiple time by exchanging the rook ,but he wont do that, he done this thing with hari too ,
this arbiter is ridiculous, he doesn't know the fide rules
these arbiters need to be fired. I've seen so many times the very same people of arbiters , getting paid to not give a damn about the game.
It's remind me of old magnus
this is torture
Why not make win to equal 3 points and draw only 1? So that there are less draws?
Fantastic idea, but what does that have to do with this? Completely irrelevant.
I remember that it was tried on some tournaments years ago but then it reverted to the traditional scoring system. I guess players didn't like it that much.
Throw in overtime, golden goal.. then penalties.
@@divinity176 Agreed :D
Why TF shoul a draw be worth less than half of a win?
Blitz is complete nonsense, and all the problems that occurred during this championship is a proof. I think federation should just stop organizing this kind of competition. This is just spoiling chess itself. Honestly, who can find any interest in this endgame ?
this tournament has been a joke from the arbiters
What a rubbish arbiter. Other videos also show that the whole bunch of Fide arbiter at the tournament are completely weak. He should be coordinating the game but he looked like he was lost
That arbitors crap at his job unfortuinte