They have existed in the past, but rules for different positions (like extending the 50-move rule to 100 moves for certain positions) have never worked well. it would be hard in practice to say, "this is OK here, but not there". Although this is an unfair example of the rules working badly in a given position, they have to be consistent, and there may be other positions that would not be so unfair. The fact that this is even possible, no matter how unlikely, is why Alireza Firouzja lost under the rules. Here is the final position, and I will show a sample line, no matter how far fetched, that shows the rule in action. Should it be a draw since Magnus had no pawns, or a win because there is a possible mating position? Well, after an appeal, and the rules were clear, the game was awarded to Magnus. The game was up and down, but then Alireza Firouzja had a winning advantage, but in the final position below, the position was theoretically drawn when Alireza Firouzja knocked a piece over, and while resetting it, he flagged. I do not know if it is coincidence that you asked this today, but in the 2019 World Blitz Championship just this morning, there was a big to-do concerning Magnus Carlsen and Alireza Firouzja. For instance, a White King might seemingly be in danger given the position of the opponent, however, it might not be in check. This results in a draw and the game discontinues. It was probably a judgment call, and one that was made so more players would not be put off by having to play easily drawn positions for 50 moves. A stalemate usually takes place when a player is in no position to make a legal move and is not in the check. While it is not a forced mate, there is a mating position that is possible, thus they could have easily followed the FIDE rule, and allowed the side with the knights to continue playing. Well, simply put, they chose to follow the USCF "Article 14: The Drawn Game rule 14E: Insufficient material to win on time, 14E3: King and two knights."
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |