World championship 2013 preliminaries round 8
With 35.41-36! Anikeev introduced the threat 26-21 17x26 36-31 26x28 33x4 Mejia tried to neutralize it using ≡ 17-22?, but then white won using 36.32-28! and black did not await 23x21 37.26x8 3x12 38.30-24 19x30 39.34x3 W+ Black should have played ≡ 9-13!, since then 36.30-24? 19x30 37.34x14 23x34 38.39x30 fails due to 13-19 39.14x23 18x49
Chizhov increased the pressure with 41.27-22! 14-20? This is incorrect. Lagoda should have defended with ≡ 21-26 42.30-25 16-21 43.44-40 35x44 44.39x50 23-29 45.45-40 8-12 46.22-18 12x23 47.28-22 23-28 48.32x34 24-29 49.33x24 19x39 50.40-34 39x30 51.25x34 13-19 ≡ 42.30-25 35-40 43.25x12 40x49 44.12-7? Here white could win spectactularly using the combination ≡ 44.33-29! 24x31 45.12-8 49x18 46.8-3 23x32 47.3x12 W+ ≡ 13-18 45.22x13 19x8 46.28x30
It looked like Boomstra was in trouble after 3-8, but he found a way out with the sacrifice 31.50-44! 7-11 32.35-30! 24x35 33.40-34 Since 20-24? is not possible due to 34.34-29 23x34 35.39x30 25x34 36.22-18 13x22 37.28x6, Shaibakov decided to go for a draw with the combination ≡ 25-30 34.34x25 23-29 35.33x24 19x30 36.25x34 11-17 37.22x11 16x7 38.27x16 7-11 39.16x7 8-12 An alternative plan was ≡ 35-40 40.44x35 8-12 41.7x18 13x44 but with little time on the clock black probably did not trust the variant 42.38-33 9-13 43.31-27 ≡ 40.7x18 13x42 41.37x48 26x28 42.43-38 9-13 43.34-30 35x24 44.38-33 28-32
The endgame between Akoi and Nossov was not particularly interesting from a draughts point of view. White had a piece more, but since the black king controlled the long diagonal, it was not enough to win. However, the way the result of the game was realized was very remarkable. 10-5 72.49-35 5-10 73.35-40 10-5 74.40-34 5-10 75.34-45 10-32 76.45-40 32-10 77.40-35 10-5 78.35-49 5-10 79.49-16 10-5 80.16-2 5-10 81.2-8 10-5 82.8-21 5-10 83.21-49 10-5 84.49-40 5-10 85.40-49 10-5 86.49-38 5-14 At this moment Nossov lost on time, and he resigned the game. Later it was discovered that the same position had appeared three times on the board, after 71, 83 and 85 moves. Referee Frank Teer explained in a statement that the game had to be declared a draw due to the same position appearing three times on the board with the same player to move. The fact that the black player was not aware of this, and that he had resigned the game, did not matter.
About 10 years ago I had a nasty experience with something similar myself. I had ended up in a lost endgame against Clerc in the Dutch championships, and I saw how he could win. But he could not find it, and at a certain moment I noted that with my next move the same position would appear for the third time on the board. I played the move, and immediately claimed a draw. At the national youth training I had learned about the rules for this case, and so I was quite convinced that the game was over. Only now I realize that what I learned there were probably the international rules. But the Dutch federation has different rules. In my case the rules stated that I had to claim a draw without actually playing the move that would bring the same position on the board for the third time. So my claim was rejected, and I lost the game after that. The Dutch rules are quite insane if you ask me, since it is very counter intuitive that you are not allowed to play the move. However, it was an important learning experience that you need to study the rules carefully.
© Wieger Wesselink http://10x10.org