Indeed, I have read all the original Russian comments and I am sorry to find out that 90% of the people didn’t understand what happened on site. They chose to interpret everything from their point of view based on their imagination of “what could happen” or they just don’t comprehend the FIDE rules.
Let me note that it is not for the first time that such a situation happened in international events, including official events. In my practice, the last time I encountered such a situation was during the Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk. Such situations were discussed during the FIDE Rules Commission meetings with a general opinion formulation at the end.
Moreover, many lecturers discuss such situations during the FIDE Arbiters’ seminars. I am sorry, that many readers, including chess players and arbiters, voiced their decisive opinions without the command of chess rules’ nuances.
The situation is very simple. Let us again discuss the situation:
1. Before claiming a draw, Wang Hao offered a draw to his opponent as it is obvious that after the planned move is made, the position will be repeated 3 times. Getting no response from his opponent, Wang Hao claimed a draw by telling the planned move to the arbiter. According the rules he may stop the clock while claiming the draw.
2. The arbiter was right when he did not react on the claim as there was an obvious failure in procedure. Then after the second claim, the arbiter felt that Wang’s incorrect procedure claim disturbed his opponent. Because of this, he stopped the clock.
3. The Chief Arbiter added time to Dreev’s time to punish Wang Hao for disturbing his opponent. This is in accordance to the rule.
4. Dreev did not understand why his time was added, telling all that he has no connection with any of this. (The reader who made own assumptions, could hardly understand that by watching the video).
5. Finally, after clarifying the situation and adding more time to Dreev’s clock, the arbiter re-started the clock.
Here, let us make a note: in fact, no claim of draw (neither correct nor incorrect) is recorded at this moment since Wang did not write down his next intended move on the score sheet. There was only wrong behavior (procedure failure) that disturbed the opponent in time trouble. At least this was recorded by the arbiters.
6. The fact that Wang Hao told the move he was planning to make could have no consequence as the move was not written down.
7. It was clear that Wang Hao understood his mistake after the arbiter’s first intervention (and not after the arbiter’s tip) and was indifferent to the punishment of adding time to his opponent’s clock.
8. He wrote down the move immediately after the game was restarted, stopped the clock, and claimed a draw with no procedure failure, according to the FIDE Rules of Chess.
Let us note that in the first case, if he wrote down a move which would bring to incorrect claim, indeed, he would make exactly that move and on that move he would have no right of three times repetition claim.
9. Then Dreev, probably, taking into no account of that nuance claimed that his opponent lost the right of claim on that move and all the rest conversations and explanations were only and only on that issue.
10. Finally, the two sides agreed on three fold repetition and no checking of position was required as the claim of draw is also the draw offer that is recorded immediately upon the sides agreeing to it.
I would like to thank all the minority who made the efforts to invite attention on the facts rather than speculation as there was really no mistake by the arbiters in this case.
Hopefully, this will satisfy all the curiosity about this situation.
Councillor of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Commission