* There's a dispute over win vs draw, with a great behind the scenes camera work.
* "If he can talk, this is a coffee house!"
* They move so fast, they can't keep the pieces on the correct tile!
To Appeal Commitie to Fide
during the blitz game with Carlsen when
I had 2 or 4 second my opponnet speak
Loudly in his Language and of course if this
will be allowed then every body can do this
and of course everybody lose their consentratoin
and I want to request appeal to check
with camera.Basically have some empathy, losing is rough & in a tournament most players are losing, for all we know he just needed to sleep on it & came around the next day
Why doesn't the person im supposed to empathise with instead empathise with his opponent and not throw a tantrum?
> Why doesn't the person im supposed to empathise with instead empathise with his opponent and not throw a tantrum?
Because he's a kid and we often have differing expectations for children than we do adults.
How many of us could handle that kind of pressure at his age?
From the video of the play, it doesn't look like Alireza threw a fit. Losing on time I'd be frustrated enough to whack the table. It is a tense moment. What seems unsportsmanlike is his interactions with the arbiter.
>I will add some additional information from the broadcast and what microphones picked up during the norwegian live coverage.
>After Alireza lost on time (he fumbled his king, not the bishop), he claimed that there was no mating material and that it should be a draw. There was then a pretty loud discussion at the table, when the arbiter ruled the game as a draw. Magnus claimed there was mating material on the board, the arbiter still ruled a draw. We could then hear Magnus say "Who's ruling is that? Is it yours?" since he thought the arbiter was influenced by Alireza. The head arbiter then came over and ruled a loss on time for Alireza since there was mating material on the board. They moved to the side, and the camera and microphones picked up a heated debate between the head arbiter and the Alireza team and they needed the rules explained to them. After a lot of fuzz, Alireza was shown the very clear rule that it is only a draw if there is "not mating material left by any means possible for Carlsen".
>Then Alireza changed his story and claimed that Carlsen spoke something in Norwegian and had disturbed him. The arbiter then said he should have stopped the clock and addressed it when it happened, and again Alireza claimed that this happened when there was 2 seconds left on the clock and it would be impossible. This was the second time he changed his story.
>The head arbiter ruled that he lost on time and if he had any concerns about Carlsens behaviour he should have adressed it at the table.
>Alireza and his team put in an official complaint, claiming that Carlsen said something in Norwegian and distrubed when Alireza had only seconds left on the clock.
>While the complaint was reviewed, the TV team showed the entire endgame. It shows Magnus spontaneously whisper a norwegian word when he blundered his C-pawn. Carlsen had at the time about 2-3 seconds on the clock, Alireza more than 8 and a completely winning position. If he wanted he had time to complain, but was winning on the board. They played for about 2 more minutes and Alireza fumbled pieces 3 times and lost a lot of time on the clock.
>It was only when he lost on time, all these excuses showed up. The jury overruled his complaint, and Alireza lost on time. He was extremely sympathetic in the interviews before this, but this circus after his loss was an embarassment for him and his team.