[chessmind] Dennis Monokroussos: Ken Regan on the Krush-Zatonskih controversy, the film, and the grassy knoll

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by Dennis Monokroussos:
Ken Regan on the Krush-Zatonskih controversy, the film, and the grassy knoll
http://chessmind.powerblogs.com/posts/1213331005.shtml


   Ok, the last part's a joke. But here is what IM Regan has written on
   the subject (by e-mail):

     ChessBase posted an update earlier this week, prompting people to
     view the video in slo-mo:
     [1]http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4686. I have done
     so, and this adds one meaningful observation to the above, about
     the time when I said hands came into near-contact. According to
     ChessBase's re-creation of the game---which appears to be
     correct---these moves were:

     37. Rb7 c5 38. Rxb6 a5 39. Ra6 c4

     However, Zatonskih's hand playing 38...a5 also pushed White's Rook
     from b6 back to b5, even touching a sliver of b4. This explains the
     *forward* motion of Krush's hand to execute what shows on the
     scoresheet as the sideways move Rb6-a6. This also delays Krush's
     hand, and as Krush is making the move, Zatonskih's is already
     hovering over her c-pawn. It is *possible* that Zatonskih touched
     the pawn (necessitating its move to c4) before Krush finished her
     move, and *possible* that she began thrusting the pawn forward
     before Krush released her hand from the Rook on a6. However, on
     stepping frame-by-frame between the 0:43 and 0:44 marks on
     ChessBase's cut of the video, I see that in the first frame (two
     before 0:44) with a definite forward movement of Zatonskih's hand,
     Krush's hand is already over a6 and is *lifting straight up* thru
     the next two frames.

     In line with points (1)--(4) of my original comment, is there
     consensus that *Krush* could have claimed a win at move 38 since
     Zatonskih pressed her clock without fixing the Rook she jostled
     from b6 to b5/b4? My new summary point is:

     (6) At no time did Zatonskih clearly begin making a move on the
     board before Krush finished executing a move on the board. The
     moves 39. Ra6 c4 were close, but the video does not prove such a
     violation. At all other moves it seems clear to me that Zatonskih
     did wait until Krush had finished her move-on-the-board, in keeping
     with Braunlich's clarification of legal play. I believe 39. Ra6 c4
     is the juncture referred to in Bionic Lime's "second issue", and
     the main part of what Krush's letter says about Zatonskih's moves
     with the c-pawn, but I disagree that the video shows it matching
     Lime's "(A)-(F)" sequence. Overall I see no video contradiction to
     Tom Braunlich's description and interpretation of the rules.

     The slowed-down video also shows how Krush lost the "8-to-3-sec"
     time advantage: her moves (especially 38.Rxb6) took longer to
     execute! And I meant to say in my previous comment that "regular
     rhythm" did not mean the times were equally spaced between the two
     players---it is more a heartbeat rhythm, ba-bum, ba-bum... In sum I
     empathize with Irina about there being irregularly-played moves
     during the scramble (two, one by each player), about her being
     unable to press her clock the last two moves (for "no-fault"
     reasons I explained in point (5)), and about the US title having
     been decided by something that was "not chess", but I find nothing
     to counter the proper non-intervention by the arbiters, let alone
     overcoming the need for a protest to have been lodged at the time.

     [Kenneth W. Regan, 6/12/08]

References

   1. http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4686