Magnus Carlsen vs Ernesto Inarkiev

quote::
After Inarkiev made his illegal move the position was illegal because his king was in check and it was not his turn. After Carlsen made his (perfectly legal) move the position was legal again because Inarkiev was in check and it was Inarkiev's turn. Inarkiev was wrong to stop the clocks and claim an illegal move. The first arbiter made a mistake. Presumably Inarkiev said that Carlsen had made an illegal move and the arbiter took his word for it without checking - very unprofessional.

Article 7.5.1 defines when an illegal move has been completed (different from "made"😉 and what should happen next in standard play games -

this is not a quote, but my own:

The crucial question here is - does the player lose right to claim victory on the ground of illegal move if he doesn't see it?

(Like threefold repetition, if you don't claim it right away, the train is gone!)

If Carslen was too late, then we have both an ethical question and another rules related question:
- does Inarkev have moral right, that is, is it fair play from him to demand point after he himself made a mistake which could have cost him a point?

and

- does he have right to claim the point after Carlsen moved his King away?!

So he knowingly plays an illegal move,
then tries to claim a win on the basis of an illegal move being played....

Ernesto deserves to lose not only the game,
but lose his chess playing privileges altogether!

I just hope the rule wasn't changed to suit Carlsen

I obviously am no expert but to me the situation seems as follows:
1. Illegal move from Inarkiev.
2. Carlsen can win by claiming it, but (instinctually or otherwise) moves his king out of danger instead.
3. Inarkiev claims that Carlsen has then made an illegal move, and claims he (Inarkiev) deserves a full point.

In this situation, IMO Carlsen missed the opportunity to claim illegal move (but made a legal move) so the game should either proceed after 28. Kd3 or be brought back to before 27…Ne3+.
I'm not sure what the protocol is exactly, but assuming "position is legal" == "legal move," then game should resume after 28. Kd3, since the game is once again legal.
Inarkiev seems clearly in the wrong, particularly as he's losing and (I'm assuming, given that he later refused to play) intentionally played out this sequence of events to try and secure a win.

This is the first I've heard of this Inarkiev fellow. He sounds a bit slimy. I can't believe this dirty trick almost worked.

Originally posted by @greenpawn34

Magnus Carlsen vs Ernesto Inarkiev (Black to play)

[fen]1r2r3/1R3ppp/1k6/1B1n4/8/2P2P2/2K3PP/1R6 b - - 0 27[/fen]

At this point, Inarkiev played the illegal 27...Ne3+. While Magnus might have won instantly
by claiming the illegal move, instead he instinctively moved his king out
of danger with 28.Kd3.

At this point Inarkiev stopp ...[text shortened]... ld resume from that point.

Inarkiev refused to play and Magnus was awarded the win.

I assume this was a blitz game? Inarkiev's position looks pretty dire, 27. ... Ka5 28. Ra1#, 27. ... Kc5 28. Bxe8 leaving Carlsen an exchange ahead, and taking the rook with either 27. ... Kxb7 or 27. ... Rxb7 allows Carlson to swap down to a bishop vs knight ending a couple of pawns ahead (the bishop can grab the f pawn after taking on e8). So trying it on seems to have been his best chance.

Originally posted by @deepthought
I assume this was a blitz game? Inarkiev's position looks pretty dire, 27. ... Ka5 28. Ra1#, 27. ... Kc5 28. Bxe8 leaving Carlsen an exchange ahead, and taking the rook with either 27. ... Kxb7 or 27. ... Rxb7 allows Carlson to swap down to a bishop vs knight ending a couple of pawns ahead (the bishop can grab the f pawn after taking on e8). So trying it on seems to have been his best chance.

He is one of those Kas called 'enthusiastic amateurs' with a sub 2700 rating, only a mere 2684"😉

Hi Deep Thought.

Heat of the moment 'try on'. I've seen the most placid of people get all
het up at blitz. He just chose the wrong player. If it had been a 2600 player
it would have blown over. The arbiters original decision also helped blow this up.

The Chief Arbiter's interview.

YouTube

He confirms his decision was based on Carlsen's move being legal and the relevant section is A.4.2 of the FIDE Arbiter's Manual.

http://arbiters.fide.com/images/stories/downloads/2017/Arbiters-Manual-2017-v0.pdf

Originally posted by @greenpawn34

Magnus Carlsen vs Ernesto Inarkiev (Black to play)

[fen]1r2r3/1R3ppp/1k6/1B1n4/8/2P2P2/2K3PP/1R6 b - - 0 27[/fen]

At this point, Inarkiev played the illegal 27...Ne3+. While Magnus might have won instantly
by claiming the illegal move, instead he instinctively moved his king out
of danger with 28.Kd3.

At this point Inarkiev stopp ...[text shortened]... ld resume from that point.

Inarkiev refused to play and Magnus was awarded the win.

This seems to be the correct decision on the arbiters part. It was silly that Inarkiev should argue that he won after making an illegal move himself.

Originally posted by @mchill
This seems to be the correct decision on the arbiters part. It was silly that Inarkiev should argue that he won after making an illegal move himself.

One thing for sure. It will be a long time before Ernie gets to play Maggy again🙂 I don't think Carlsen will be sending him christmas cards🙂