Crossword Help Forum
Forum Rules

World Chess Blitz Championship Final - controversial outcome.
This was a match of four games between Carlsen and Nepo. It finished 2-2 after Nepo led 2-0. The regulations then stipulated that they draw for colours and play more games until someone wins. They played three more games, all drawn, and Carlsen then proposed that they stop and agree to share the title. The arbiters decided to phone the FIDE President (a Russian, as is Nepo) for permission to grant the players' request. Permission granted, so the regulations were ignored for the second time if you include the 'no jeans' dress code climb down after the concurrent Rapid Championship from which Carlsen withdrew after refusing to change his trousers. This made the national press. Unfortunately chess often makes the news bulletins only when there is a row.

I think FIDE showed weakness and allowed Carlsen twice to get his own way. Many of the players are furious about it and social media is awash with comments. Even if the dress code rule was a bad one it had been agreed to by the players. As for the title sharing, that was disgraceful and not what chess fans and probably the sponsors wanted. It would never happen in professional tennis or golf and the chess was specifically a knockout tournament. Ok, so what should happen if Carlsen and Nepo went on to collude in playing out an endless succession of draws? Disqualify them and award the title to the winner of a third-place playoff between the losing semifinalists. Would Wimbledon finalists collude in an endless tiebreak in order to share the title? Golf plays sudden death extra holes even though the Majors are not knockout tournaments, though I suppose the 'cut' is a partial one.

Once you start messing about with regulations, you tend to have trouble.
At golf, even in a casual friendly, if I hit a ball and find it out of bounds or lose it I expect to go back and repeat the shot for a 'stroke and distance' penalty. If a kind opponent says, 'Oh it's only a friendly, just play another ball from here', I insist on the proper rule, wondering what other rules we can ignore. Otherwise what's the point of scoring and possibly getting a wrong result? We may as well just enjoy playing shots for the sake of it.

If you got as far as this, thanks for reading my rant. 😖

I quite agree. There should be a winner. You might recall a similar thing happened in the Olympic Men’s High Jump in 2021. Rather than have a jump-off, the two good friends wanted to share it and were both given gold. Fast forward to the most recent renewal in Paris. The Kiwi, Hamish Kerr, didn’t want to share, and promptly won the jump-off. Good on him, I say.

https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/high-jumpers-still-refuse-to-share-olympic-gold-even-after-three-years-of-a-similar-massive-controversy-know-the-inside-story/articleshow/112476643.cms

I agree, but didn't make a fuss about it because I am (to put it extremely mildly) not a fan of FIDE.

There's been much speculation / conspiracy theory babble about Carlsen (et al.) *wanting* to cause a schism with FIDE. See for instance
https://gmalexcolovic.substack.com/p/fischers-ennui-and-the-jeans-scandal

Paul

I read your interesting rant.

Re Golf - surely it is OK to just play "another shot from here" in a friendly. Going back is tedious and holds others up I have found.

Re Bridge

I have started again and find that you were involved in establishing the Grading System. Well done - it seems better than the chess one

PaulH @261
Clubs are allowed to introduce a local rule for balls lost or out of bounds to play another from that place, with a 2 stroke penalty, and many have done so. It speeds up play.

chrise@265 and grunger@264

You are quite right about the golf. I tend to be over-pedantic about the rules of any game I play. The best solution is to play a provisional ball if in doubt. We don't do that enough.

My role on the bridge grading committee was very limited. I was invited only because I wrote to the EBU to urge an alternative to the purely cumulative master point system. I was used to the long established chess system which took into account bad results as well as the good. It also factors in the strength of one's opponent. It means youngsters can quickly rise up the rankings whereas in bridge it can take most of a lifetime to become a grandmaster. Once the EBU changed Direct Individual Membership to 'Pay to Play' in affiliated clubs, it was able to collect detailed results from every club session, and thus the data for a grading system.

The brains behind the maths was Mike Christie. There was some grumbling from traditionalists but the master point system was not abandoned and still runs in tandem with the NGS (National Grading System). A boost for the committee was the co-opting and support of Peter Lee, a leading bridge player. He is still the only person to have won the British Chess Championship (1965) and its bridge equivalent, the Gold Cup. His profession: statistician.

Paul

Thanks - interesting re Peter Lee. i believe Mestel is good at bridge as well as chess

Indeed, grunger@267, Jonathan Mestel is the only British person to be a grandmaster at chess and bridge. We didn't have a chess grandmaster at all until the late Tony Miles in 1976, though Keith Richardson was awarded the Correspondence Chess version before then. That form of the game has
lost credibility now that computer chess programs are so strong.

Of course the title is awarded very differently in each game. Bridge still requires a vast accumulation of master points whereas the chess title is achieved by tournament performances and a minimum rating level. Hence chess grandmasters in their teens are not uncommon.

Brendan, have you ever watched any video of the old "BBC The Master Game" TV series? I've seen a few episodes and they're a lot of fun, though a significant time investment.
Here's one with a young Nigel Short vs. Tony Miles (who apparently developed a mutual animosity in later years).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8LeMqp-Kz4

Thanks Geeker,

I was really taken aback by the Kraftwerkesque/post punk electro gothic/OMD intro and was pleased to see the game was being played OTB in the studio (OTB Bren? What other way was there back then!!) But oh no, the game had already been played and the show producer just had Short and Miles sitting over the table while they commentated on the game.

Great fun though, especially as I hadn't seen it before.