I think if both players are under 30 seconds there should be a 1 second increment... if the gap is more than a min, the player with the time advantage deserves the opportunity to flag their opponent.
In today's chess it makes absolutely no sense to play without increment. I don't know how anyone can think that this time control is better for the people watching.
What do we mean by cannot win by normal means? Daniel had a rook, so technically had checkmating material. How are we applying the notion of better position and how far could it extend?
Normal means implies that unless nihal doesn't blunder he would win the match and being a complete bishop up pretty much sums up the definition of a better position. So yeah nigal had proper grounds to claim for a draw. Hope that helps.
@@AnkitSingh-jn9zj Guess the question then is how far this argument of being better extends to or if there are grey areas in qualifying clearly better vs pressing.
@@parvmaheshwari1790If it is a grey area, the rules allow the arbiter to postpone the decision and have the players play on. The arbiter can then decide after he flags whether he loses or draws. With only a couple of seconds on his clock, there wouldn't be many more moves to clarify the position, though. (You can claim once you have less than two minutes, so sometimes there will be time for a significant number of moves to clarify the position.) There is an alternative rule he could have used. Instead of claiming a draw, he could have requested increment. His opponent can then either take a draw or, if the arbiter agrees, the opponent gets an extra two minutes and both players get 5 seconds of increment and they play on. That way he could have played for a win if his opponent refused a draw. A flag then would have been a loss, though.
@@parvmaheshwari1790 Hi great critical questions raised, but it would be helpful if you had presented them more palatably (or simple) instead of writing your points abstractly that requires sequential reasoning to deduce (i.e., if B, then A must exist first). I do agree that time is and should be the biggest factor to determine an end-game, more so intense (or tight) and without time increment types. FIDE has been known to be persistent in its manner of operation, notably seen in Magnus Carlsen's explicit dissatisfaction with the lengthy format and pressure of the World Championship matches (in which he withdrew to defend his title). Interestingly, this no time increment draw rule seems to comparably align with the 50-Move Rule where players cannot force a blunder out of their opponent even if they had more time.
I am very sure that Magnus doesn't know this rule. If he has known, he will press the clock when he played against Alireza istead of keep playing and lost on time
I was on Magnus's side on that, but explained good like this, I understand Nihal's claim was on point and even if Daniel did not agree on the draw, the arbiter was about to call it a draw. So yeah, an unfortunate misunderstanding. But on the other hand it shed a light on this rule for many people.
A good tournament is spoiled by adopting unfavourable time control. It leaves bad memories for the top players. Hope the event is not compromised ( in future ) for the sake excitement and thrill for spectators who may not know much about chess?!
But if he claimed the draw to the arbiter and not the opponent then isn't that asking the arbiter if it's a draw..? Dardha should have been informed that he didn't have to agree.. that the arbiter wasn't making the draw decision, that it was just a draw offer. Also when someone stops the clock it isn't it resigning not offering a draw.. it's clear he stopped the clock for the arbiter to make the decision
Yes, the arbiter got the procedure wrong. I think he confused two rules. You can either claim a draw or you can request increment. If you request increment, that counts as a draw offer and the first step is to ask the opponent if they want to draw, but that wasn't what happened here. This was a draw claim and the opponent has no say in it. In this case, it makes no difference because he's said he would have declared it a draw anyway. If he would have denied the claim then giving the opponent the choice could mean the opponent takes a draw when they actually would have won, which would be a big problem.
This is an optional rule that is very rarely used in modern chess. It used to be more common, but these days almost every tournament uses increment, so the rule doesn't apply.
Nepo, Gotham (indirectly), Magnus called out the Arbiter on twitter for not giving a warning. Even David Howell during the live commentary clearly said Nihal was playing illegal moves... If David can spot it live, Arbiter should also be able to do that! It's interesting the Arbiter refers to himself in 3rd person , instead of just saying, *I* made a mistake and I take full responsibility
But the first person who should have dealt with it was Daniel Dardha. If Nihal played an illegal move then Dardha should/could have just paused the clock and called the arbiter. If he plays on despite the illegal move then he gives it validation and the game goes on.
Why is everyone targeting Nihal? If Nihal made an illegal move, then Dardha should have paused the clock and called the arbiter. Expecting the arbiter to intervene within 5 seconds is nonsense. And also if dardha feels that nihal made illegal move then he should not agreed to draw when arbiter asked him.
The question isn't whether you have chances, but whether you can "win by normal means". That's rather subjective, but it is basically saying you can force a win without your opponent having to make any massive blunders. That's different to the normal draw by insufficient material rule.
@@thomasdalton1508 That's your opinion and I have mine too. But based on the game as analyzed by Sagar, I am pretty sure Dardha can ultimately convert it into a win.
@@napoleonbonaparte4410 Where is this analysis by Sagar? The Stockfish evaluation is +7. That doesn't always reflect what can happen between humans, but it is a good guide. I'm a very weak player, so I may be missing something, but it looks to me like Nihal just needs to move his king towards Black's remaining pawn, then bring the rook in and take the pawn. Then there is no question. The position is three or four very easy moves from black having no pawns, at which point a win for black by normal means is obviously impossible.
@@thomasdalton1508 Are you not watching Chess Base India? Well, the take away is you are a weak player as you said, so basically you don't understand the complexities of the game. Try honing your skills by playing online or otb tournaments and please don't rely on chess engines too much.
Chess rules in no-increment time format is so complicated..it was better to set Fischer time format🙂 is it 20 minutes? Then it could be 17m+3sec🙂👏👏 that's the solution! Learn you arbiters😐😐😂😂I'm a simple chess player and i understand it😐how can't you understand that?😐 without Fischer time it's impossible to see fair play..😐players may throw down pieces so many times😐👏
They want dramatic time scrambles. The format is designed to be entertaining for the viewers rather than to give the purest chess. They may have to review that choice for future tournaments...
No increment in otb is not a good idea at all
I think in last 10 sec there should be 1 sec increment for each move
I think if both players are under 30 seconds there should be a 1 second increment... if the gap is more than a min, the player with the time advantage deserves the opportunity to flag their opponent.
Cringe tournament
Very well questioned and equally well answered
In today's chess it makes absolutely no sense to play without increment. I don't know how anyone can think that this time control is better for the people watching.
What do we mean by cannot win by normal means? Daniel had a rook, so technically had checkmating material. How are we applying the notion of better position and how far could it extend?
Normal means implies that unless nihal doesn't blunder he would win the match and being a complete bishop up pretty much sums up the definition of a better position. So yeah nigal had proper grounds to claim for a draw. Hope that helps.
@@AnkitSingh-jn9zj Guess the question then is how far this argument of being better extends to or if there are grey areas in qualifying clearly better vs pressing.
@@parvmaheshwari1790If it is a grey area, the rules allow the arbiter to postpone the decision and have the players play on. The arbiter can then decide after he flags whether he loses or draws. With only a couple of seconds on his clock, there wouldn't be many more moves to clarify the position, though. (You can claim once you have less than two minutes, so sometimes there will be time for a significant number of moves to clarify the position.)
There is an alternative rule he could have used. Instead of claiming a draw, he could have requested increment. His opponent can then either take a draw or, if the arbiter agrees, the opponent gets an extra two minutes and both players get 5 seconds of increment and they play on. That way he could have played for a win if his opponent refused a draw. A flag then would have been a loss, though.
@@thomasdalton1508 Sure, thanks for the elaborate response. That's helpful
@@parvmaheshwari1790 Hi great critical questions raised, but it would be helpful if you had presented them more palatably (or simple) instead of writing your points abstractly that requires sequential reasoning to deduce (i.e., if B, then A must exist first). I do agree that time is and should be the biggest factor to determine an end-game, more so intense (or tight) and without time increment types. FIDE has been known to be persistent in its manner of operation, notably seen in Magnus Carlsen's explicit dissatisfaction with the lengthy format and pressure of the World Championship matches (in which he withdrew to defend his title). Interestingly, this no time increment draw rule seems to comparably align with the 50-Move Rule where players cannot force a blunder out of their opponent even if they had more time.
HUGE W for chessbase India !!!
I am very sure that Magnus doesn't know this rule. If he has known, he will press the clock when he played against Alireza istead of keep playing and lost on time
I was on Magnus's side on that, but explained good like this, I understand Nihal's claim was on point and even if Daniel did not agree on the draw, the arbiter was about to call it a draw. So yeah, an unfortunate misunderstanding. But on the other hand it shed a light on this rule for many people.
A good tournament is spoiled by adopting unfavourable time control. It leaves bad memories for the top players. Hope the event is not compromised ( in future ) for the sake excitement and thrill for spectators who may not know much about chess?!
But if he claimed the draw to the arbiter and not the opponent then isn't that asking the arbiter if it's a draw..? Dardha should have been informed that he didn't have to agree.. that the arbiter wasn't making the draw decision, that it was just a draw offer. Also when someone stops the clock it isn't it resigning not offering a draw.. it's clear he stopped the clock for the arbiter to make the decision
u fool for calling the arbiter u must stop the clock it is not just for resigning
Yes, the arbiter got the procedure wrong. I think he confused two rules. You can either claim a draw or you can request increment. If you request increment, that counts as a draw offer and the first step is to ask the opponent if they want to draw, but that wasn't what happened here. This was a draw claim and the opponent has no say in it.
In this case, it makes no difference because he's said he would have declared it a draw anyway. If he would have denied the claim then giving the opponent the choice could mean the opponent takes a draw when they actually would have won, which would be a big problem.
Chess without increment = Butcher's game
Most players, including super GMs, do not know the rules of chess. This is a fact everywhere.
This is an optional rule that is very rarely used in modern chess. It used to be more common, but these days almost every tournament uses increment, so the rule doesn't apply.
What about magnus game with alireza? Magnus had a conpletely winning position.
Vd op match against nordi
How do you determine whether the opponent can win or not?
Let's create a new rule : the Drop Claim.
Does this rule of claim a draw in a winning position applies only on no increment time control or on every formats...
Every format bro
Only in quickfinish games. (No increment)
No bro only in no increment matches
@@vishal9264Don't spread misinformation. These rules exist only for games with no increment, you can check fide handbook.
Only on no increment matches yep.
Nepo, Gotham (indirectly), Magnus called out the Arbiter on twitter for not giving a warning. Even David Howell during the live commentary clearly said Nihal was playing illegal moves... If David can spot it live, Arbiter should also be able to do that! It's interesting the Arbiter refers to himself in 3rd person , instead of just saying, *I* made a mistake and I take full responsibility
He is chief arbiter not arbiter of Nihal”s game - thats why he said at the end he need to intervene & ask player because he is chief arbiter.
@@vrundpatel25but he was also monitoring the game right? At least in the live video he was right there
But the first person who should have dealt with it was Daniel Dardha. If Nihal played an illegal move then Dardha should/could have just paused the clock and called the arbiter. If he plays on despite the illegal move then he gives it validation and the game goes on.
Yeah - situation was messy - OTB should have at least +2 secs increment
We can’t blame player for it.
Why is everyone targeting Nihal? If Nihal made an illegal move, then Dardha should have paused the clock and called the arbiter. Expecting the arbiter to intervene within 5 seconds is nonsense.
And also if dardha feels that nihal made illegal move then he should not agreed to draw when arbiter asked him.
In that game between Nihal and Dardha, I think, the latter has chances of winning if he did not consent to a draw.
The question isn't whether you have chances, but whether you can "win by normal means". That's rather subjective, but it is basically saying you can force a win without your opponent having to make any massive blunders. That's different to the normal draw by insufficient material rule.
@@thomasdalton1508 That's your opinion and I have mine too. But based on the game as analyzed by Sagar, I am pretty sure Dardha can ultimately convert it into a win.
@@napoleonbonaparte4410 Where is this analysis by Sagar? The Stockfish evaluation is +7. That doesn't always reflect what can happen between humans, but it is a good guide. I'm a very weak player, so I may be missing something, but it looks to me like Nihal just needs to move his king towards Black's remaining pawn, then bring the rook in and take the pawn. Then there is no question. The position is three or four very easy moves from black having no pawns, at which point a win for black by normal means is obviously impossible.
@@thomasdalton1508 Are you not watching Chess Base India? Well, the take away is you are a weak player as you said, so basically you don't understand the complexities of the game. Try honing your skills by playing online or otb tournaments and please don't rely on chess engines too much.
@@napoleonbonaparte4410 I don't watch every single video on the channel - they are very prolific. If you want me to review an analysis, link to it.
Its a shitty time control
The MTI lol
1st person here
Chess rules in no-increment time format is so complicated..it was better to set Fischer time format🙂 is it 20 minutes? Then it could be 17m+3sec🙂👏👏 that's the solution! Learn you arbiters😐😐😂😂I'm a simple chess player and i understand it😐how can't you understand that?😐 without Fischer time it's impossible to see fair play..😐players may throw down pieces so many times😐👏
Arbiters do not decide the time control...
They want dramatic time scrambles. The format is designed to be entertaining for the viewers rather than to give the purest chess. They may have to review that choice for future tournaments...