thank you Mr. AnthonyCG for the info & record.
What if Kasparov had to continue with his original move 36...NC5 - would he have lost the game? Is 36...NC5 a bad move? many thanks
kasparov vs polgar
Sort:
thank you again Mr. AnthonyCG. I think BC6 would indeed be a disaster for Kasparov! Did Kasparov had anything to say about this incident? or any other player for that matter?
Further analysis by better minds than mine has demonstrated that Kasparov could have drawn the game ... but whether or not he could have discovered the solution in time pressure is anyone's guess (it had something to do with swinging the queen over to H4 and managing perpetual check somehow, unfortunately I forget the series of moves) . It's pretty well recorded that Kasparov took his hand off the piece, and supposedly there is video footage, but I've never been able to find it.
The strongest evidence I've found that Kasparov indeed cheated was that he later said he was not aware his hand had left the piece, and that his conscious was clear. While I think that is possibly true (that he was not consciously aware of his infraction), it seems to be a confession that he acknowledges that his hand had indeed come off the piece. If no video evidence existed to suggest otherwise, I don't think he would have phrased it this way. I think he would have said "My hand did not come off the piece."
IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
It's pretty well recorded that Kasparov took his hand off the piece, and supposedly there is video footage, but I've never been able to find it.
The strongest evidence I've found that Kasparov indeed cheated was that he later said he was not aware his hand had left the piece, and that his conscious was clear. While I think that is possibly true (that he was not consciously aware of his infraction), it seems to be a confession that he acknowledges that his hand had indeed come off the piece.
If that is the same thing as cheating is another thing. If I recall correctly the video was supposed to show that his hand had left the piece for a small fragment of a second, and it was impossible to see unless one looked at the film frame by frame. Polgar didn't protest and the arbiter didn't see anything. It was first afterwards it turned out that the sequence had been filmed by a Spanish TV team. Similar things have happened with Carlsen, for example against Aronian in Amber a couple of years ago.
fabelhaft wrote: If that is the same thing as cheating is another thing. If I recall correctly the video was supposed to show that his hand had left the piece for a small fragment of a second, and it was impossible to see unless one looked at the film frame by frame.
That's a good point, and one I should I have clarified in my post. I believe Kasparov technically cheated (since he technically broke the rules), but you are correct that a major issue here to be considered is whether he wilfully cheated (was he consciously aware that he broke the rules).
When I wrote that Kasparov's statement was the strongest evidence I'd seen of cheating, I should have clarified that. I meant that it was the strongest evidence I had seen that an infraction of the rules (on his part) had actually occurred. Because I have never seen the film myself, nor been able to find it anywhere, I had yet to be persuaded that his fingers had indeed ever left the piece in the first place.
Kasparov's statement suggested to me that despite the lack of video evidence (that was available to me), he himself must have seen something to change his mind from "My fingers didn't leave the piece" to "I was not aware my fingers left the piece, and my conscious is clear."
My apologies for my failure to properly define my terms and the intent of my post. I merely meant the term to indicate that the rules had been broken, but you are correct to question me: What I define as "Technically cheating" many people would not term cheating at all.
IoftheHungarianTiger wrote:
fabelhaft wrote: If that is the same thing as cheating is another thing. If I recall correctly the video was supposed to show that his hand had left the piece for a small fragment of a second, and it was impossible to see unless one looked at the film frame by frame.
That's a good point, and one I should I have clarified in my post. I believe Kasparov technically cheated (since he technically broke the rules), but you are correct that a major issue here to be considered is whether he wilfully cheated (was he consciously aware that he broke the rules).
When I wrote that Kasparov's statement was the strongest evidence I'd seen of cheating, I should have clarified that. I meant that it was the strongest evidence I had seen that an infraction of the rules (on his part) had actually occurred. Because I have never seen the film myself, nor been able to find it anywhere, I had yet to be persuaded that his fingers had indeed ever left the piece in the first place.
Kasparov's statement suggested to me that despite the lack of video evidence (that was available to me), he himself must have seen something to change his mind from "My fingers didn't leave the piece" to "I was not aware my fingers left the piece, and my conscious is clear."
My apologies for my failure to properly define my terms and the intent of my post. I merely meant the term to indicate that the rules had been broken, but you are correct to question me: What I define as "Technically cheating" many people would not term cheating at all.
I've certainly seen worse posts than yours on that game, but not many better :-) It's not uncommon to see what happened described like this: Kasparov played his knight to one square. After looking closer at the position he realised that the move lost on the spot, so he grabbed the knight again and made another move. An exasperated Polgar protested but the Arbiter didn't dare to disqualify Kasparov in spite of the video evidence showing that he wilfully cheated.
What seems to be proved (even if I know of no one that has seen the often mentioned stills from the video) is that Kasparov's finger did leave the knight for a fragment of a second, so he did break the rules. Polgar didn't protest, but the TV crew filming in Linares afterwards unexpectedly turned out to have the sequence on film. There was never any question of the Arbiter using such films in his work, in this case there wasn't even a protest and the video turned up too late anyway. The position in question was analysed to a draw with best play from both sides with Kasparov's first move.
Maybe Kasparov did think he never lost touch with the knight, at least there are no other incidents of this sort during his career. For example Carlsen has already had a couple of takebacks that he claimed not to be aware of (in blitz and rapid), where he made his first move instead after having it pointed out to him that his hand did leave the piece (and for a much longer time than Kasparov's in the game against Polgar). Other players have of course made much more obvious and wilful takebacks than these (Marshall once played a move when his opponent was absent, and a few minutes later changed it) but of course the fact that it was Kasparov that was involved made it much more debated than it otherwise would have been.
I think I read that his hand left the piece for a fifth of a second.
Seem to remember a story about him slamming doors and behaving badly in a match with Anand.
Also, after a reversal of fortunes saw Kasparov lose to Radjabov, Kasparov filibustered the award presentation when Radjabov was given the brilliancy prize for the game.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=851
What I would like to know, is what is the Arbiter's responsibility in this matter? Is he supposed to intervene if he sees something? Or is his job to wait for a player to say something? I haven't found anything online clearly stating his responsibilities, except for something from the Irish Chess Union, which is hardly the official FIDE guidelines (no offense to the Irish out there, I'd say the same thing about the USCF), but is the only material I've found that deals specifically with this issue. For what it's worth, the ICU states - as one of the Arbiter responsibilies:
"to see that the Laws of Chess are observed. He should act against any infraction of the laws by one of the players which is against the interest of his opponent or against the interest of the competition. Therefore he should establish, even in the absence of a claim, whether the time-limit has been exceeded, that the touch-move rule is observed, that the players keep score of the game, etc. This requires the continuous supervision of the playing area by the arbiter and his assistants, particularly of games involving time shortage. However he should not intervene in cases where his intervention could be interpreted as aid to one of the players or where one of the players only has neglected his own interest (for instance in failing to press his clock after making a move)."
The best I could fine on FIDE's website was the following, located under "Recommendations for Organization of Top-level Tournaments: All participants are bound by the Laws of Chess and should behave at all times during the tournament in accordance with the FIDE statutes and the highest principles of sportsmanship, settling all controversial issues by agreement and in the spirit of FIDE.
Which doesn't quite answer my question. What I'm hoping someone can enlighten me on, is the role of an Arbiter: are they supposed to enforce the rules, or are they supposed to merely make decisions when conflicts arise? I don't know. And I can't find any definitive guidance on the subject. Does anyone else have any literature they can point me to?
Just as a side note, I'm not saying I could've handled the situation any better than the Arbiter - I don't think I'd have caught something that happened that fast. But as he was (according to some reports) standing right next to the table observing the incident, what was his responsibility? Or did he have none, unless Polgar protested?
pfren wrote:
Kasparov showed even less sportmanship in an earlier incident, at the 1980 Malta Olympiad:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1069878
The strong Bulgarian GM had completely outplayed Garrik by a sacrificial attack. White was about to make his 21st move (the obvious 21.Bxe7), and trying to grab the e7-man, he accidentally touched the d6-pawn. Kasparov, probably following some advice from the team captain, claimed that white should play 21.Rxd6, which obviously loses a rook for nothing. The chief Arbiter Lothar Schmidt dismissed the claim saying "only an idiot would play 21.Rxd6 here, and that young lad does not look like being one of them".
Even less sportsmanship? The incident against Georgiev wasn't too extreme. According to chess journalist Roshal what happened was that Georgiev "unexpectedly committed, as chess players say, a "fingerfehler" - he picked up the wrong piece". Karpov said that "Kasparov rightly demanded touch move" but the Arbiter supported Georgiev and that was that. Nothing wrong in having the Arbiter decide such matters, and bad sportsmanship or not the 17-year-old Kasparov was probably expected by his team to approach the Arbiter when his teammates claimed it was a clear case. Maybe they were wrong but I wouldn't say it was one of the worse cases of bad sportsmanship in chess.
Kaspy has never been a good example of great sportsmanship , but many top players arent .
Right now I am reading Kasparov's own words in Garry Kasparov on Garry Kasparov Part III (1993-2005) and I think there's no room for doubt left...
(page 40) "In time-trouble suddenly I nervously picked up the d7-knight and placed it on c5 but immediately - without taking my hand off it, but merely releasing my fingers - I saw that ... After a second's pause I returned the knight to d7."
What the heck does "without taking my hand off it, but merely releasing my fingers" even mean? How is "merely releasing my fingers" different from "taking my hand off"? It seems painfully obvious that Kasparov did cheat and is now trying to rationalize it to himself.
Ummm one can relax the muscles and release and still be touching the piece...
fyi, video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4g3iDrsNk
I think it's clear his fingers left the piece, and he likely did realize what he'd done. It would have been a huge mistake (even if the position was theoretically drawn) because Kasparov and Polgar had already had a pretty contentious relationship and no woman had ever defeated a reigning world no.1. Judit went on to do that despite losing this game, but pretty shameful to see this from Kasparov in a tournament game imo. It's not the only time either (though this was a faster time control, I think the FIDE rule still applies): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE
what is the game where Kasparov "supposedly" cheated by the touch move rule against Judith Polgar? when did this take place? at what tournament? and may I request for the full game record? thanks