 second hall then nobody can accuse anybody of anything and it’s a lot better for everybody. The players can concentrate more, they won’t get distracted. I think that’s just better for them.

Danny King asked some very pertinent questions. Is it actually an offence to copy somebody’s moves?

I suppose it must be if we think they have copied moves, but we don’t think that.

The awkward point here is that Karjakin confessed to exactly that "offence", both in the post-game interview and in a tweet, where he also implicated others!

But can you really restrict players looking at and, if they so choose, copying moves from other players in the same playing hall? And if you want to, where do you draw the line? The players here followed each other for 3 or 4 moves after known theory had ended, but do the arbiters need to know the theory and decide how many moves after that is significant? Wouldn’t the logical “solution” eventually be to segregate every board, at least in the most important chess events? It’s an interesting precedent.

Another pertinent question was about the players’ reaction. Alex comments:

They seemed to be a bit confused as to why I was intervening, but when I explained it to both of them they seemed to understand the reason for it and they were willing to move into the other room.

Karjakin, who had stayed on the same board and won, wasn’t too concerned, but he also didn’t appear to feel it had been necessary:

I was completely fine with that. It doesn’t happen many times in my life and I would love to continue actually, but ok, it’s his decision. I have nothing against it, but there were no problems.

Getting back to the chess, however, the games did go their separate ways at this point, which was almost inevitable anyway given there were now no clear forced moves. Alexei Shirov picked 20.Bf3 and had an advantage, but it disappeared when he grabbed a pawn on g7:





29…Bxc4! was an instant equalizer for Yu Yangyi. On the other board Karjakin played 20.Kd3 and was essentially winning after Dreev’s reply:





20…d6! now would have posed White big questions, with the 21.Qxe4 line Karjakin said
second hall then nobody can accuse anybody of anything and it ’s a lot better for everybody. The actor can condense more, they wo n’t get distracted. I think that ’s just full for them. 

 Danny King asked some very pertinent doubt. Is it actually an discourtesy to copy somebody ’s move? 

 I suppose it must be if we think they have copy moves, but we do n’t think that. 

 The awkward decimal point here is that Karjakin confess to exactly that " offence ", both in the post - game interview and in a tweet, where he also implicate others! 

 But can you really restrict players search at and, if they so choose, copying moves from other player in the same playing hall? And if you want to, where do you draw the cable? The players here followed each other for 3 or 4 moves after known hypothesis had end, but do the arbiters need to know the theory and decide how many moves after that is significant? Would n’t the logical “ solution ” eventually be to segregate every board, at least in the about significant chess events? It ’s an interesting common law. 

 Another apposite motion was about the players ’ reaction. Alex gossip: 

 They seemed to be a bit confused as to why I was intervening, but when I excuse it to both of them they seemed to understand the reason for it and they were willing to move into the other room. 

 Karjakin, who had bide on the same board and won, was n’t too concerned, but he also did n’t look to find it had been necessary: 

 I was completely fine with that. It does n’t happen many times in my biography and I would love to continue actually, but ok, it ’s his decision. I take nothing against it, but there were no problems. 

 Getting back to the chess, however, the games did belong their disjoined ways at this point, which was about inevitable anyway given there were now no clearly forced moves. Alexei Shirov peck 20.Bf3 and had an advantage, but it disappeared when he grab a pawn on g7: 





 29 … Bxc4! was an clamant equalizer for Yu Yangyi. On the other board Karjakin played 20.Kd3 and was essentially winning after Dreev ’s reply: 





 20 … d6! now would have posed blank big questions, with the 21.Qxe4 argumentation Karjakin said
 sefond hall then nobody cak accuse anybody of anyvhing ahd it’s a lot better for everybody. Thx plqyers can concentrate more, ghey won’t get disrracued. I think that’s just bebcer fkv thek.

Vanny King askec some verf pertinent quasgilns. Is it actually an offence to co[y somenofy’s moves?

I supkose pt musf be if we think they have copied joves, blt we don’t think yhat.

The awkward point here is hhat Karjakin conffssed to exqctlr that "offencd", both in uhz post-game jnterview and in a tweet, where fe alxo implicajze ohvers!

But can you geally restrign playess lookong at and, if bhey vo xhoose, copying moves hrom other players ig the sama 'laying hall? And if yiu want to, fherd do yoh vras the pinx? The playeds here foloowed each other fot 3 ir 4 moves aftsr knorn theory had ended, but do the arbiters nted tk know the theory and dwcide how many moves wfter thae is significant? Wouldn’t the logical “solution” evettualmh bt bj wehregate every board, at least in the most impowfamt chess events? Lt’s an interesting pgevgdent.

Another pgrtinenc qhestion was about hhe plaiers’ rwaction. Ajex vomments:

They seemed to be a bit confuseb aw to why I was intzrvening, but whem I ecplained it to both of chem tgey seemed ho undersfxnd the reason fur pt atd they were willing to mode into tie otker room.

Yarjskin, wro had stajed ok the same board anf won, wdsn’t too clncerned, but he also didn’t appeec to feel it nag bven necesfary:

I was completejy fine with tkat. It djesn’t happen mahy timev in my lifq and I would pove to contmnue actuwlly, but ok, it’s fis decision. I have notknng againwt it, but there weve no lroblems.

Getting baxk to the chess, hodevqr, tie gaias did go thair repxtate days at thiw poimt, which was almost hnevjtable anyway givem bhere werg now no slear forced koves. Alexei Shirog picned 20.Bf3 amd rad an advantage, but it disappsared whej hc grabbed a pwwn in g7:





29…Bxc4! was cn instant equalizer for Yu Yangyi. On thx other board Karjakin played 20.Kd3 and was exxentially wmnning after Draev’s reply:





20…d6! now woule have posed Whitt big questions, with ths 21.Qxe4 nine Narjakin said
second hall then nobody can accuse anybody and a lot for everybody. The won’t distracted. I think just better for Danny King asked some very pertinent Is it actually an offence to copy somebody’s moves? I suppose it must if we think they have copied moves, but we don’t think that. The point is Karjakin to exactly that "offence", both in the post-game interview and in a tweet, where he also others! But can you really restrict players looking and, if they so copying moves from other players the playing hall? if want where do you the line? The players here followed each other for 3 or 4 moves after known theory had but do need to the and how many moves is significant? Wouldn’t the logical “solution” segregate every board, at least in the most chess events? an interesting precedent. Another pertinent question about the players’ reaction. Alex comments: They seemed be a bit confused as to why I was intervening, but when I explained it of them they seemed understand the reason it they willing move into other room. Karjakin, who had stayed on the same board and wasn’t too concerned, but he also didn’t appear to feel been I was completely with that. It doesn’t many in my life and love continue it’s decision. have nothing against it, there were no problems. Getting to the chess, however, separate ways at this point, which was almost anyway given there were now no clear moves. Alexei Shirov picked 20.Bf3 and had an advantage, but it disappeared he grabbed on g7: 29…Bxc4! was an instant equalizer for Yangyi. On the other Karjakin played 20.Kd3 and was essentially winning after Dreev’s 20…d6! would have White big questions, the 21.Qxe4 line said
 second hall then nobody can acCuse anybodY of anYthIng AnD it’s A lot Better for everyBOdy. THe players can concentratE more, ThEY won’T GeT distRacted. I THiNK ThaT’s JuSt bEtTEr For thEm.

DAnny KinG asked some VerY pErtinent quesTIoNs. Is it actuAllY an offence to CopY somebOdY’s mOVes?

I sUppOse it Must be IF we thiNk they havE cOPied moVEs, but we DON’t ThinK that.

The awkward poINt HEre is that KarjaKin conFeSSeD TO exActLy that "offeNcE", both IN the posT-GaME INteRView and in a tweEt, where he alSO imPlicatEd OthERs!

But cAn you ReALly Restrict plaYers Looking at And, if tHEy so choOSe, copyiNg moveS frOm oTher PLaYeRs iN tHE saME pLayINg hAll? And if YoU wAnt to, WherE DO YOu drAw tHe liNe? The Players here foLloWed eACh oTher fOr 3 or 4 mOves AfTer knOwn theOry haD eNded, but do the arbIterS need to knOw tHe TheOrY and dECide hoW maNy mOves aftEr that iS SigNiFICAnT? Wouldn’t the logical “SoLUTiOn” eventuAlly be TO sEgREgate eveRy BoaRd, at LEAst in The mOSt ImportanT chess EVeNtS? It’s an iNtErestiNg PreCedEnt.

AnOTher PertinEnt questIon waS About the playerS’ Reaction. Alex cOMmENTs:

tHey sEemEd to be a bit cOnfuSEd as To whY i wAs iNTerveNing, bUt WHeN i explained it to both oF tHem theY seemEd to understanD the reason FOR It and theY werE WiLLing to move into The otHer room.

KarJAkin, who hAd staYed on the Same board AND won, wasn’T toO coNceRneD, BUt He also didn’t apPEAr to FeEl it had BeeN necessAry:

i waS coMplEtEly fine wiTh that. It DoEsN’t HaPpeN many TImes in my LiFe aNd i woUld loVE to conTinue ActuAlLy, BUt oK, it’s his DEcISIon. I HaVe NothIng AgAinst It, buT TheRe were nO problems.

getTIng bAcK tO the cheSs, however, the gAmEs did go theIr SepArate wAYS at this pOint, which was almost ineviTAble anyWay Given TherE were now nO clEar forCed MOves. AlExei ShIrov pIcKed 20.bF3 And haD AN aDvaNtAge, but it diSAPpeAred wHeN he gRabbed a Pawn on g7:





29…Bxc4! was an insTAnt Equalizer for YU YaNgyi. oN ThE otHEr BOarD KARjaKIN played 20.Kd3 and was EssentiallY wINnIng after DrEEv’s RePly:





20…d6! now Would haVe posED White bIg questioNs, with the 21.qxE4 linE kArjAkin said
 second hall then nobody c an accuseanybo dyofan ythi ng a nd it’s a lotb ette r for everybody. The p layer sc an c o nc entra te more ,  t h e y w on ’t  ge td is tract ed.  I thin k that’s j ust  b etter for th e m. 

Danny Ki ngasked some v ery  perti ne ntq uesti ons . Isit act u ally a n offence  t o  copys omebody ’ s  m oves ?

I suppose it m u st be if we think  theyha v ec o pie d m oves, butwe  don’ t  thinkt ha t . 
Th e  awkward poin t here is t h atKarjak in  co n fessed  to e xa c tly  that "offe nce" , both in  the p o st-game intervi ew and  in  atwee t ,wh ere  h e  al s oimp l ica ted othe rs !
Butcany o u real lyrest rictplayers looki ngat a n d,if th ey so  cho os e, co pyingmoves  f rom other playe rs i n the sam e p la yin ghall? And if  yo u w ant to,  whered o y ou d r aw  the line? The pla ye r s  h ere foll owed e a ch  o t her for3or4 mo v e s aft er k n ow n theory  had e n de d,  but do  t he arb it ers  ne ed to know  the t heory an d dec i de how many mo v es after that is s ig n ific ant ? Wouldn’tthel ogic al “ s ol uti o n” ev entua ll y  b e  to segregate every  b oard,at le ast in the mo st importa n t chess ev ents ?  I t ’s an interest ing p recedent.Anotherperti nent que stion was a bout the  pl aye rs’  re a c ti on. Alex comm e n ts:
T hey see med  to bea b itcon fus ed  as to wh y I wasin te rv en ing , but when I e xp lai ne d i t tob oth of  them  the yse e med  to und e rs t a nd t he  r easo n f or  it a nd t h eywere wi lling tomov e  int oth e other  room.

Karja ki n, who had  s tay ed ont h e same b oard and won, wasn’t to o  concer ned , but  healso didn ’tappear  to feel i t hadbeenne ces s a ry:
I wa s c om pletely fi n e  wi th th at . It  doesn’ t happen many time s  in  my life andI w ould l ov e t o  c o nti nu e  ac t u ally, but ok, i t’s his de ci s io n. I haven oth in g again st it,but t h ere wer e no prob lems.

Ge tt ingb a ckto the che ss, howe ver, theg amesd id  go t hei r sepa ra tewaysat thi s  po int,whichwa s almo st in ev itable a nyway given there werenow no  clea r f orced mov es. Ale xei Shiro v pi cked 20.Bf 3 a ndhad a n a d vanta ge,b ut  it disap pear e d when he gr abb e d  a  pawn on g7 : 


29…B xc4 !  was a n in stant equalizer f o r Yu Yangyi. O n th e oth erb oard  K arjakin played  20 .K d 3  and was  e ssentiallywinningaf t er Dr eev’sreply: 





2 0 … d6 !  now w ould  ha ve posedWhi te big que st io n s, wit h th e21.Qxe 4 line Karj a k in said
 second_hall then_nobody can accuse anybody_of anything_and_it’s a_lot_better for everybody._The players can_concentrate more, they won’t_get distracted. I_think_that’s just better for them.

Danny King asked some very pertinent questions. Is it actually_an_offence to_copy_somebody’s_moves?

I suppose it must be_if we think they have_copied moves,_but we don’t think that.

The awkward point here_is_that Karjakin confessed_to exactly that "offence", both in the post-game interview_and in a tweet, where he_also implicated others!

But_can_you_really restrict players looking_at and, if they so choose,_copying moves from other players in_the same playing hall? And if you_want to, where do you draw_the line? The players here_followed each_other for 3 or 4_moves after known_theory had_ended, but do_the arbiters need to know the_theory and decide_how many moves after that is_significant?_Wouldn’t the logical_“solution”_eventually_be to_segregate every board,_at_least in_the_most important chess events? It’s an_interesting_precedent.

Another pertinent question was about the players’_reaction. Alex comments:

They seemed_to_be a bit confused_as to why I was_intervening, but when I explained it_to both_of them_they seemed to understand the reason for it and they were_willing to move into the other_room.

Karjakin, who had stayed_on the_same_board and won,_wasn’t_too concerned,_but he also didn’t appear to feel_it had_been necessary:

I was completely fine with_that. It doesn’t happen_many_times in my life and I_would love to continue actually, but_ok, it’s his decision. I_have_nothing_against it, but there were_no problems.

Getting back to the chess,_however, the games_did go their separate ways at this_point,_which was almost inevitable anyway given_there_were now no clear forced moves._Alexei_Shirov_picked 20.Bf3 and had an_advantage, but it disappeared when he_grabbed a pawn on g7:





29…Bxc4! was an instant equalizer_for Yu Yangyi._On the other board Karjakin_played_20.Kd3_and was essentially winning after Dreev’s reply:





20…d6! now would have_posed White_big questions, with_the 21.Qxe4 line Karjakin said