Blog

2018 Sinquefield Cup

Leave a comment
As Chief Arbiter of the 2018 Sinquefield Cup I thought I’d put together a brief article on some of the issues that came up during the event and some of the lighthearted fun we had, or was had at our expense.

USCF Award

First off came a big surprise. I was very honored and proud to have been awarded the US Chess Tournament Director of the Year award, which was to be presented at the recent US Open. Unfortunately I couldn’t make it to that event to pick up my plaque as I was working the British Chess Championships and therefore was expecting to have it shipped to me. However, 15 minutes into the Sinquefield Cup opening ceremony the US Chess Executive Director, Carol Meyer, gets asked to say a few words. Nothing unusual there, not until she then asks me to come to the front of the room. The little chuckle from the audience you hear is me saying something under my breath I probably shouldn’t have said, and apparently saying it a little too loudly. 🙂 In front of the live viewing audience, both onsite and online, along with 10 of the world’s best chess players, I was presented with my beautiful award. Talk about a somewhat humbling experience, going from sitting at the back of the room trying not to be noticed to front and center with all eyes on me. An arbiter’s worst nightmare! Here is the moment captured in glorious technicolor along with a tweet from US Chess. My thanks to US Chess and those who gave me the honor of receiving this award and thanks also to the St. Louis Chess Club folks for setting this up. Despite the embarrassment it was a nice surprise.

No Draw Rule

Here are the special draw rules that were in effect for the 2018 Sinquefield Cup:
8. Competitive Play To promote competitive play during Classical games, it will not be permitted for players to offer or agree to a draw during the 2018 Sinquefield Cup or during the Classical games at the GCT Finals in London, except as specifically indicated below:
  • In the event of a claim for a draw under Article 9.2 of the Laws (three-fold repetition) or under Article 9.3 of the Laws (50 move rule), one of the Event Arbiters must be asked to verify the claim.
  • In a completely drawn position in the endgame, a claim for a draw may be made to the Event Chief Arbiter. The Chief Arbiter shall be empowered to accept or refuse the claim and may seek such advice as he or she considers appropriate.
Admittedly this was the first time I’d had to oversee Sophia Rules without a move limit, e.g. no draws by agreement before move 30. Of course I’d seen this in practice at other events and had a rough idea of the types of positions that could be deemed a “completely drawn position in the endgame.” So what happens in the first round? The following position occurs at the end of the Nakamura-Anand game:

At this stage Hikaru and Vishy claim that this position is a “completely drawn position in the endgame.” Basically my options are to tell them to continue playing and probably watch them repeat moves three times, or agree with them. I chose the latter, feeling that nothing but a draw is coming from that final position, especially with these players, but did it meet the exact definition as written? Well, in listening to the GM commentary the next day, and receiving confirmation from the GCT Chief Arbiter a day or so later, it seems not and so the correct thing for me to do should have been to ask them to play on and watch the inevitable three-fold occur. With that in mind, prior to the start of round 2 I had to get all the players together and let them know that although I believe the result of that game was never going to be anything other than a draw, I had to raise the threshold a little on what would be considered a “completely drawn position in the endgame” from now on. To accomplish the players meeting, and to ensure there could be a frank discussion in private if necessary, I had to keep all spectators out of the room until the players showed up. Of course that was always going to draw a few questions so here is a little clarification interview I gave to Chess.com’s FM Mike Klein about what had happened. Watch IA Chris Bird On Sofia Draw Rules from Chess on www.twitch.tv You can also read Mike’s full report on the round at Chess.com and see a funny picture of me looking through a closed door at the awaiting spectators. The last question asked at the impromptu players meeting was by Magnus Carlsen who asked “if that same position (queen + 5 pawns vs. queen + 5 pawns) arises again, will you allow a draw to be agreed?” to which my very clear response was “no.” Fast forward to the end of round 3. Levon Aronian is playing Magnus Carlsen and after 31… Qxc3 arises on the board Magnus got to show the humorous side of his nature. I’d seen this coming and was already shaking my head with a grin on my face when he approached me with his queen + 5 pawns vs. queen + 5 pawns ending. We both just laughed at each other and thankfully he went back to play and a repetition was found shortly after.

Eric Rosen managed to capture the moment Magnus got back to his board but a lot of folks out there weren’t quite sure what was funny. Well now you know! In round 5 another issue came up with the no draw rule. Levon Aronian and Vishy Anand reach the position after 33. Bxa6.

Levon then calls me over to make a claim of the draw. The only objection I have is that it’s no longer Levon’s move and mostly draw claims have to be made when it’s your turn, or at least before you hit the clock, but irrespective of when you make it the draw offer still stands. However, I turned to Vishy and said something to the effect of “it’s your turn, if you are in agreement then I’m happy to rule this position a draw.” Either he misheard me or he felt like just playing it out as he said “no, it’s OK, we’ll just repeat.” So, they repeated, but only twice! Now, my mind is thinking do I make them repeat again, or just declare it a “completely drawn position in the endgame?” I went with the latter but it did raise a question on the wording of the rule as to what happens if one player makes the claim and the arbiter agrees but the other player doesn’t? There is nothing in the wording about both players having to agree even though common sense says they should before you allow the draw to stand.

Keeping Score with a 30-second Delay

First off let me say that I don’t think I’d ever worked an event with a 30-second delay, even in the US world of delay heavy time controls although I have been at events that have used a 30-second increment but if your clock wasn’t capable of that then you could use a 30-second delay. In relation to keeping score, especially when you have less than 5 minutes, I felt certain that the players had to keep score throughout the entire game when using a 30-second delay, similar to a 30-second increment, until I reread the FIDE Laws on keeping score.
8.4 If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock at some stage in a period and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then for the remainder of the period he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1.1.
Even the US Chess rules, although not in effect for this event, only mention increment.
15B Scorekeeping in Time Pressure, Non-Sudden Death Time Control If either player has fewer than five minutes remaining in a non-sudden death time control and does not have additional time (increment) of 30 seconds or more added with each move, both players are excused from the obligation to keep score until the end of the time control period.
Of course the main question is does a 30-second delay equate to 30 seconds being added with each move? It’s probably not so clear and so I started asking a few people in the know for clarification on what we were going to ask the players to do. Here are some of the sensible pointers I received but no firm “Yes, this rule says so.”
  • When someone was working out how much time was needed to be able to keep score and be able to make a sensible, albeit rushed move, 30-seconds was deemed the minimum amount of time necessary and so it doesn’t matter if it is increment or delay.
  • I’m certain the intent was to include delay too in the clarification on having to keep score but with the rules rewrites it just got overlooked.
  • FIDE says that the minimum time control for a game to be rated by players of this level is G/90 +30 seconds per move (or 2 hours minimum based on a 60 move game). If delay wasn’t included in this then that time control with a delay would not be FIDE rated but it is.
Some of the above makes sense but after some serious digging I found the wording in the FIDE Laws that made the argument to have them keep score more solid, sort of. In the glossary of terms at the end of the FIDE Laws is the following definition of increment.
increment: An amount of time (from 2 to 60 seconds) added from the start before each move for the player. This can be in either delay or cumulative mode.
“This can be in either delay or cumulative mode.” Bingo! So there you have it. That definition is the whole basis of how we made players keep score with a 30-second delay when having less than 5 minutes on their clocks. My understanding is that there might be a few people seeking a clearer line on this front in Batumi at the various commission meetings.

What Does the Arbiter Do?

As part of my pre-round security checks each day one of the areas I have to check is the Confession Booth. This is a little private soundproof booth (actually a kitchen closet) where players can go during their games and give their insight live on camera. It’s a one way conversation meaning they can only talk but cannot hear or see anything and the fans and commentators love getting the feedback from the players themselves as to what they are thinking about during that particular moment of the game. From my perspective, it seems only natural when confronted by a video camera it makes complete sense to do something silly, especially when it’s 30 minutes prior to the round starting and nobody else is around. In this case I pulled a funny face, not realizing the camera was actually rolling and capturing everything going on. Fast forward a little to 40 minutes into the live commentary and a caller to the show asks the question “what does the arbiter do?” How bloody convenient! If I didn’t know any better I’d say this “caller” may well have been planted or at a minimum coaxed into asking such a question, just so someone could make use of such valuable footage collected earlier in the day. I knew something was going on when Kevin (the camera guy) started following me around for a few minutes and getting in my face. It was all I could do to keep a straight face and I’m not sure I managed the whole time but thankfully the director was smart enough to change camera shots when he started to see the grin appear. 🙂 Anyway, here is the result.

Round 7 Carlsen-Caruana Media Frenzy

Round 7 was crazy. This would be the last time that Magnus Carlsen, the current World Champion, and Fabiano Caruana, the current World Championship contender, would play each other in a classical game before the World Championship match takes place in November in London later this year. The pairings worked out in a way that this game would happen on a Saturday, which is invariably one of the heaviest attended days in terms of spectators and the results from previous rounds had fallen in a way that if Fabiano beat Magnus he would overtake him as the #1 rated player in the world on the live rating list, the first time anyone would have achieved that in 7 years. Add all of the above to the fact that is has been a long time since the US has had a contender for the World Championship and this kicked off a media frenzy. Along with the usual chess media, HBO and Sports Illustrated both decided to set up camp along with the local stations and various photographers from around the world such as Harry Benson CBE showed up. In fact we had so much media that we had to close the playing hall to spectators for the first 15 minutes, giving the press their much needed access to the front row for photo/video opportunities. I kept everyone behind the ropes for the first couple of minutes then slowly rotated people in for a closer look and to get a different angle. As much as the St. Louis Chess Club wants to give the players the best playing experience possible, they also want to get chess the most media exposure it can and so it is a very fine line between accomplishing these two goals. Once the spectators appeared the room was full to capacity and we had to even rotate those folks in once space became available. Thankfully the Club had some staff members taking care of these things while we tried to concentrate on the chess itself. Scroll forward about 30 minutes and one of the players asked me if the photography was going to continue all round. Of course the usual customer friendly philosophy was yes, but there also had to be a point where people were going to have to stop taking photographs so the players could eventually concentrate and if a player was mentioning it to me then that point was now. My job was then to discreetly find the photographers with the loudest shutter snaps and ask them to take a break, which of course they did. However, they also wanted to be back and so when they returned I asked them to be a little more selective with their shots, for instance try to time them just after a move and don’t take a lot of shots within a short space of time so we didn’t get the continuous snap, snap, snap. It worked, for the most part. It’s difficult when you have non-chess folks trying to work out when the best times to take photographs are. They also probably don’t ever have to think about having quiet equipment too and I can’t imagine they’ll be going out of their way to look into it on the off chance they get to shoot another chess event either. LOC02502 Photo by Lennart Ootes LOC02737 Photo by Lennart Ootes The game itself saw Fabiano on the ropes, which led to Magnus visiting the Confession Booth to send one of the most talked about messages to the Fabiano fans in the US. However, it all backfired as Fabiano managed to hold on by the skin of his teeth leaving me to tweet the following.

Grischuk’s Bird’s Opening

Round 8 led to one of the funniest moments of the event, at least in my eyes. Alexander (Sasha) Grischuk, notorious for getting into time trouble, showed up a couple of minutes late to his game for the 2nd day in a row. He comes running in all flustered, apologizes for being late, puts his bag down and then rattles off 1. f4! for his opening move (the ! is because he basically shouted the move, not because of the greatness of it). It’s not often that Bird’s Opening is employed in such a high level event but as it put his opponent, Wesley So, into a deep think my brain started turning over how to make the most of this opportunity. As luck would have it Lennart Ootes, DGT and photography guru, just happened to be kicking around with his camera and the plan quickly came together.

No Playoff for Sinquefield Cup

As you most undoubtedly know by now, the 2018 Sinquefield Cup ended in a 3-way tie for 1st with Magnus Carlsen and Levon Aronian managing to catch Fabiano Caruana with wins in the final round. There was then supposed to be a 2 player playoff, with the 2 players determined by the following tie-breaks:
  • Head to head results
  • Most victories
  • Most victories with the black pieces
  • Drawing of lots
All 3 players had the exact same tie-breaks and so we had to prepare for a drawing of lots. However, as soon as Magnus finished his win he told me that either there had to be a 3 player playoff or he didn’t want to be involved. Of course I had absolutely zero say in what happened from this point and so I conveyed that message to the Grand Chess Tour organizers, predominantly Tony Rich as he was the only one onsite. After various follow up conversations Fabiano, who also had to play a playoff for the 4th Grand Chess Tour Finals spot declined such a playoff and therefore as all players didn’t agree the drawing of lots was back on. However, the idea of sharing the title sprung up from Magnus and Levon agreed. Tony went off to contact Fabiano and the Grand Chess Tour folks and when he came back they all agreed and so not only was this the first time we had got a repeat winner of the Sinquefield Cup, we had 3 of them! Here is the video, captured by FM Mike Klein of some of the discussions. Watch The Players Discuss Tiebreaks At The Sinquefield Cup from Chess on www.twitch.tv A curious coincidence of the 3 winners was pointed out by me. Needless to say it seems I’m well on my way to being a good luck charm for these 3, which probably has its pros and cons!

Boyd Reed, Deputy Arbiter

My Deputy Arbiter for the Sinquefield Cup was none other than US Chess Director of National Events, IA Boyd Reed. Boyd had been Chief Arbiter of the St. Louis Rapid and Blitz and was able to stay on the extra 2 weeks or so to do this event too. Unfortunately Boyd had quite the cold going on for the first few days and had to survive on some decent medications to get himself through the event. However, Boyd did have some of his own fun during the event, as can be testified by some of his tweets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *