PDA

View Full Version : Tournament Instructions



Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 09:55 PM
I'm running a tournament on the weekend and as well as explaining the rules before play I'd like to post an information sheet on the rules where players can see etc. Wondering if anyone can think of anything else I should be adding.. (it's a lightning tournament). I'm adding prizes too they just haven't been finalised.

Lightning Rules

- 5 mins per side
- Win by checkmate, Win on time and win if your opponent makes an illegal move (Edit: removed taking king).
- Touch piece: tournament rules dictate if you touch a piece, you must move it or if you touch your opponentís piece and it is legal to capture it, you must do so. If by touching the piece it would be illegal to move it, you may make a different move.

If there is a dispute, immediately stop the clock and call the arbiter who shall settle it. The arbiterís decision is final.

skip to my lou
03-08-2004, 09:57 PM
I missed out on second place in a lightning tournament because I took my opponents king.

Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 10:06 PM
I missed out on second place in a lightning tournament because I took my opponents king.

I'm not following.. you were penalised somehow for doing that?

jenni
03-08-2004, 10:09 PM
I'm not following.. you were penalised somehow for doing that?

King capture is not allowed - it is an illegal move. Try telling that to our little juniors though. Blitz isn't the same if you can't snatch the other person's king. :)

Garvinator
03-08-2004, 10:09 PM
I(this means you may take your opponentís king). im sure ill get corrected if im wrong, but the blitz rules were changed a while ago. It is now illegal under fide rules to capture your opponents king. Basically the correct thing to do is when you notice your opponent has left his/her king in check, they have played an illegal move and you claim the game like you would for any other illegal move. Point out the illegal move and claim the game.

The reason for the rule change i imagine is that with pieces going everywhere with a few seconds remaining, it wouldnt be that difficult to take your opponents king, but you werent actually legally able to do it.

Now all you do is stop the game and point out the illegal move and claim the game.

skip to my lou
03-08-2004, 10:09 PM
Yes. It was the final game of the tournament.

I took my opponents king in the endgame and Peter.C said that I am not allowed to do that and declared that I lost because of it.

Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 10:14 PM
Well, holy potatoes batman, I had no idea. I think it's a shame, it was a very satisfying thing to take a king. When was this rule changed?

And Jeo that's pretty diabolical.. I reckon if the arbiter didn't make that clear at the beginning of the tournament you still should have been awarded the win. Random rule changes like that have to be announced...

jenni
03-08-2004, 10:19 PM
Well, holy potatoes batman, I had no idea. I think it's a shame, it was a very satisfying thing to take a king. When was this rule changed?

And Jeo that's pretty diabolical.. I reckon if the arbiter didn't make that clear at the beginning of the tournament you still should have been awarded the win. Random rule changes like that have to be announced...

Quite some years now - I think this is the 3rd year we've used it in Canberra.

eclectic
03-08-2004, 10:26 PM
Quite some years now - I think this is the 3rd year we've used it in Canberra.

next they'll be wanting you take a digital photo of such disputed positions as confirmation ...

but not of course with a camera containing mobile phone

:hand:

eclectic

skip to my lou
03-08-2004, 10:42 PM
Quite some years now - I think this is the 3rd year we've used it in Canberra.
This happened to me about 2 - 3 years ago, I can't remember exactly when, but a long long time ago.

jay_vee
03-08-2004, 10:49 PM
King capture is not allowed - it is an illegal move. Try telling that to our little juniors though.

Actually, try finding a rule that forbids capturing the king - there is none. The rules were to be changed a few years ago, but the FIDE rules commission could not agree on the issue. Some thought, capturing the king was a valid way to claim an illegal move, some thought, it was an illegal move itself, and some actually thought, that the game should be declared lost for both players! So there actually is no clear rule on capturing the king in blitz at the moment; even the head of the FIDE rules commission, Geurt Gijssen thinks it is currently required to announce how this will be handled before the tournament (but doesn't say what is to be done, if this is neglected).

btw, he agrees, it should be illegal; personally, I kind of like the "both players should lose" argument, despite the obvious practical difficulties. It teaches players to correctly claim illegal moves, but doesn't reward the opponent for having made an illegal move himself.

Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 10:56 PM
Interesting jay vee. Anyway, until I'm absolutely certain I will not announce king captures in my conditions but if it arises I will still award the game to the player capturing the king. I guess that's the beauty of running a tournament, what you say goes ;)

skip to my lou
03-08-2004, 11:10 PM
I guess that's the beauty of running a tournament, what you say goes ;)

I bet Matt, peanbrain or arosar will say that you are power hungry.

Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 11:19 PM
I bet Matt, peanbrain or arosar will say that you are power hungry.

Haha :D

It's only because it's a tournament involving a lot of players who have never played a tournament before - for some clocks and touch piece will be new experiences, so I'm really not going to be an ogre when it comes to king taking.

Garvinator
03-08-2004, 11:22 PM
Haha :D

It's only because it's a tournament involving a lot of players who have never played a tournament before - for some clocks and touch piece will be new experiences, so I'm really not going to be an ogre when it comes to king taking.
until the first argument where one players claim he/she wasnt in check.

jay_vee
03-08-2004, 11:25 PM
until the first argument where one players claim he/she wasnt in check.

But then, what do you do when the first player claims his queen wasn't hanging?

Alan Shore
03-08-2004, 11:34 PM
until the first argument where one players claim he/she wasnt in check.

Nice try but you could just as easily use that argument for any move. And I hear all the time in my coaching classes 'He took his finger off after he moved! No I didn't! Yes you did!' but I'm sure it'll be more mature than that, haha.


But then, what do you do when the first player claims his queen wasn't hanging?

Exactly. Hopefully there'll be witnesses! It'd make my job easier.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:02 AM
The following is the history of the situation and includes extracts from an email I sent to Geurt Gijssen the Chairman of the FIDE Rules Commission and which he published in the May 2002 issue of his Arbiters Notebook column on Chesscafe.


From 1977 when the FIDE Central Committee meeting approved the "FIDE
Regulations for Five-minute Chess" thru to I believe 1992 the section of those
regulations on The Won Game stated in rule 8:

The game is won by the player a) who has mated his opponent's King b) whose opponent declares that he resigns c) whose opponent completes an illegal move, which includes leaving his King in check or moving his King into check, but only if the player claims the win before he himself touches a piece (see rule 17) or captures the King as valid proof d) whose opponent's flag falls first, at any time before the game is otherwise ended.

So for nearly 15 years that these FIDE Regulations existed taking the King was a valid means of claiming an illegal move. However in 1992 these regulations were replaced by "Regulations for Five Minute (Blitz) Chess" which were approved by the 1992 General Assembly and amended by the 1993 General Assembly. In these rules the rule regarding the won game was now rule 14 and section d replaced section 8c above. Rule 14d now reads:

Whose opponent completes an illegal move, which includes leaving his King in check or moving his King into check, and neutralizes his clock (but only if the player claims the win before he himself has completed his move.)

In late 1996 the FIDE rules were completely revised and incorporated all the rules regarding the general law, the supplemental laws regarding competitions, the rapid laws, the quickplay finish laws and the blitz laws into one complete set of laws. These came into force July 1st 1997.

The essence of 14d above is now in C3 of the current laws. If in 1992 when the law changed effectively prohibiting the capture of the King had been raised and highlighted then, we would all probably accept it or have argued at the time for the old 8c rule to be re-instated. It could be argued that since 1977 no other rule in the laws of chess has been so fundamentally changed as the capturing the King rule has been.

Having failed to highlight the significance of the rule change in 1992 it is a shame that the Rules Commission did not clarify the issue of capturing the King when the rules were revised in late 2000.

However in 1998 the FIDE Rules Commission ruled that capturing the king in Blitz was not permitted.
Unfortunately they failed to determine a penalty if a player did capture the king. In fact the members of the Rules Commission cannot reach a consensus.

At the Rules Commission meeting during the Olympiad in Bled in 2002 the issue was discussed again. The following is taken directly from the minutes:

Discussions took place about the situation in Blitz chess where a player makes a move, which leaves his king in check. There was no consensus. Some arbiters believed that, if the player captured his opponentís king, then the player should lose. Others believed that the player should win. It was decided not to disturb the current rules in place. Thus, if a player effectively
claims a win by capturing the king, he runs the risk of the arbiter declaring otherwise.

Geurt Gijssen noted in reference to that extract the following:

As a result, each arbiter in a Blitz tournament has to announce in
advance what will happen if the King is captured.

Thus there is no problem with having king captures allowed in Blitz provided the arbiter announces it at the start of the tournament. Likewise there is no problem if he announces King captures are not allowed and will lead to loss of the game.

Charles Z has arbitered a number of Lightning events where he has announced King captures are legal.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2004, 12:18 AM
Very long debate on the king-capture subject on the old BB between the usual suspects here:

http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=auschess;action=display;num=10556885 07

There is no currently prescribed penalty for king-capture, it is up to each arbiter to pre-announce what standard will apply. I always pre-announce loss of game.

Bruce - I would add:

* You can correct an illegal move if you have not pressed your clock. (you must still move/take pieces touched if it is possible to do so).
* You must claim an illegal move before you have made your own move in reply.

jay_vee
04-08-2004, 12:26 AM
The following is the history of the situation and includes extracts from an email I sent to Geurt Gijssen the Chairman of the FIDE Rules Commission and which he published in the May 2002 issue of his Arbiters Notebook column on Chesscafe.
(...)

Yes, that was one of the Gijssen columns I remembered. I didn't realize it was you to whom he was replying, though. :eek:

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:31 AM
* You must claim an illegal move before you have made your own move in reply.
The critical wording there is made.
Made refers to making a move which means moving and/or capturing a piece and releasing it.
You can still claim illegal move even if you have touched a piece.

Completing a move means pressing the clock.
There are however times when a move is completed without having to press the clock.
One example is checkmate. The checkmating move is completed as soon as the players hand leaves the piece. The same is true for stalemating moves and a couple of other situations.

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 12:41 AM
Thanks for that info Bill, very helpful. It is a good thing to know the arbiter can choose. I'll be keeping the king take rule - it's too ingrained in me. I hope at least some others would think the same way.

And thanks Kevin, I'll add those points too.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 12:49 AM
Yes, that was one of the Gijssen columns I remembered. I didn't realize it was you to whom he was replying, though. :eek:
FWIW Stewart Reuben is also on the Rules Commission and is I believe in favour of allowing King captures in Blitz.

Rincewind
04-08-2004, 07:34 AM
Very long debate on the king-capture subject on the old BB between the usual suspects here:

http://www.chesskit.com/auschess/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=auschess;action=display;num=10556885 07

There is no currently prescribed penalty for king-capture, it is up to each arbiter to pre-announce what standard will apply. I always pre-announce loss of game.

Bruce - I would add:

* You can correct an illegal move if you have not pressed your clock. (you must still move/take pieces touched if it is possible to do so).
* You must claim an illegal move before you have made your own move in reply.

Not again. If I remember correctly Bill and I (mainly but with the help of a few others) made between us smoething like 100 posts in 24 hours. :D

My position is the rules need to be clarified but my interpretation of them at present is that king captures are legal in Blitz but capturing the opponent's king does NOT win you the game - since the object of the game is to checkmate the king, not capture it. Capturing your opponent's king just prevents you from ever being able to checkmate them.

Check out the link above for the reasons.

(NB I don't impose this view on anyone as I have been unable to convince others at my club that I am correct. Or rather they prefer to follow tradition than follow the rules. ;) )

Javier Gil
04-08-2004, 09:08 AM
I never understood the logic behind this rule, other than confusing people who had played this way for decades.
I guess FIDE wanted people to believe they were "renovating" chess and that they were earning their salary by working so hard. :wall:
They call "renovating" anything these days, even something as silly as this, which was a step backward for 90% of the people I talked to at the time (except the ones who usually lost their blitz games, as now they had a chance to claim a draw in a completely lost position).
In fact, I think this might have been a bet made by some of the big fish in FIDE: "wanna bet I can change the rules of blitz and impose something as stupid as this?". :hmm:
Soon later they changed the time controls... but that's another story.

I'm glad you'll let players take the King, Bruce. ;)

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 10:14 AM
im against king captures in blitz. I think it is just so much simpler to point your opponents error and claim the game cause of illegal move. I agree with kevins choice of loss of game for king capture.

I said to Bruce the problems that can arise when allowing king captures. it is a situation that can be avoided simply by not allowing king captures.

arosar
04-08-2004, 10:21 AM
These 'problems' are in your head.

Sane people allow king captures. It is the way of the world. And it must always be so.

AR

Oepty
04-08-2004, 10:58 AM
So Guert Gijssen is insane arosar.

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 11:03 AM
So Guert Gijssen is insane arosar.
and so is kevin and myself. That would mean the acf council has an insane person on the council and also an insane person running the australian open :lol:

arosar
04-08-2004, 11:23 AM
Yep, on this issue....Gijssen and youse two - gray and Kevo are insane.

Do you always agree with Gijssen?

AR

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 11:55 AM
Yep, on this issue....Gijssen and youse two - gray and Kevo are insane.

Do you always agree with Gijssen?

AR
In my opinion Gijssen's view is flawed.
He is trying to use the fact the fact the Rules Commission ruled in 1998 that king captures in blitz are not permitted. As was noted they did not specify a penalty.
However there is no actual Article that states king captures are illegal.
The reason being is that in normal games the situation can never occur, because all illegal moves are retracted back to the position prior to the illegal move.
On top of that in Blitz many strange positions can occur and Blitz rules already allow other things that are not permitted in normal games to take plac., e.g. illegal moves not claimed stand and the play continues.

It is clear that if player A has a queen checking player B and player B leaves his King in check then according to the rules regarding piece movement and captures it is entirely valid to move the Queen to the square occupied by the King and remove it.
Allowing this explicitly in the rules as was the case for at least 15 years would be the sensible thing to do.

jenni
04-08-2004, 01:06 PM
Haha :D

It's only because it's a tournament involving a lot of players who have never played a tournament before - for some clocks and touch piece will be new experiences, so I'm really not going to be an ogre when it comes to king taking.

We run our Junior Lightning Championships with a reserves division. All the little inexperienced players go in the Reserves. The first couple of years we ran with two sets of rules. Kids in the reserves could king capture, kids in the championships division couldn't. Aus juniors lightning you can't King capture, so we viwed it as training the better kids for the conditions they would have to play in, while still allowing the little ones the fun of seizing a king.

I tend to think you should announce one way or the other at the beginning of the tournament. Doesn't matter which, as long as everyone knows (of course they have to listen as well and that's the hard bit....)

jenni
04-08-2004, 01:13 PM
OK I've read all the other posts now - as usual in chess it is a matter of arguement and debate. Are other sports like this? I mean are the rules in tennis and Footie so fuzzy that everyone spends years arguing on interpretation?

I suppose you have line calls and things like that to allow people to fight about the result.....

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 01:21 PM
Footie so fuzzy that everyone spends years arguing on interpretation?

I suppose you have line calls and things like that to allow people to fight about the result.....
havent been reading the papers or watching the news lately about the outcry over referees in both league and aussie rules :hmm:

jenni
04-08-2004, 02:12 PM
havent been reading the papers or watching the news lately about the outcry over referees in both league and aussie rules :hmm:
Never read the sports pages - too too boring... As for sport on TV :evil:

However do they debate it for 10 years, or does it actually get resolved?

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 02:19 PM
However do they debate it for 10 years, or does it actually get resolved? some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count;) ) and ill try and come up with an example.

Libby
04-08-2004, 02:28 PM
some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count;) ) and ill try and come up with an example.

Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either. :)

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 02:36 PM
Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either. :)
hence why i asked about what sport jenni will understand ;) i could have given paragraphs on prior opportunity and it would have been a waste of time for jenni :doh:

jenni
04-08-2004, 03:12 PM
some things do get continually debated. Mainly it is due to changes to interpretations of rules and how they are applied, instead of the rule itself. Can you tell me a sport you follow or at least understand(chess doesnt count;) ) and ill try and come up with an example.
umm sport....hmmm. Ok - basketball - I do go and watch that every week, as Gareth plays and I am vaguely starting to understand the rules.

jenni
04-08-2004, 03:14 PM
Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either. :)

I've never come to grips with all your Australian codes. There is the sort of game where you pick up the ball and run - that's rugby and then there is the one where you don't pick up the ball and that is football. Never have gone much further than that. :)

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2004, 03:59 PM
Yep, on this issue....Gijssen and youse two - gray and Kevo are insane.

Do you always agree with Gijssen?

I sometimes disagree with Gijssen strongly. For instance:

I thought part of his response to my question about illegal move/legal position was simply total nonsense.

I disagree with his claim that the arbiter should not judge the final position, only the subsequent play, in Art 10.2 draw claims where play on is called and a flag later falls. There is nothing in the rules to support such an interpretation at all.

This is more procedural but I don't agree with his "wait until it happens" principle in response to unusual hypothetical positions. I think good risk management involves anticipating such positions before they occur. Even if you only stop one incident in the entire history of chess it's worth it - what if that incident happens in a World Champs final or something? The consequences for the game could be very severe.

Bill - if the Rules Committee ruled that king captures are illegal in 1998 then isn't that the last word from FIDE on the matter and shouldn't we accept that, but each decide for ourselves what the penalty should be (if any)? Or are you arguing that the Rules Committee decision is actually either invalid or not binding?

Also:


It is clear that if player A has a queen checking player B and player B leaves his King in check then according to the rules regarding piece movement and captures it is entirely valid to move the Queen to the square occupied by the King and remove it.

But what if player A is himself in check? Take this example from the Tassie Lightning this year. I played Qd1-e2+ and my opponent extremely kindly responded ...Qh4xh2#, so I claimed a win by illegal move. But if I had, instead of claiming the win by illegal move, played QxKe8 (in a comp where king captures were allowed) then my move QxKe8 would have clearly been illegal under the Laws. (Art 3.9: No piece can be moved that will expose its own king to check or leave its own king in check.)

Therefore it does not follow that all king captures in blitz are legal moves.

arosar
04-08-2004, 04:22 PM
Don't be silly Kevo mate. I've had this situation many, many times. What's the matter you don't know how to express yourself or what?

After he plays Qh4xh2#, you just play your own move QxKe8. That's what we do. By proceeding with your move, you prove that it was your opponent who had made the first illegal move. What's wrong you with you? This doesn't require any kind of logical hocus-pocus.

AR

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 05:07 PM
Don't be silly Kevo mate. I've had this situation many, many times. What's the matter you don't know how to express yourself or what?

After he plays Qh4xh2#, you just play your own move QxKe8. That's what we do. By proceeding with your move, you prove that it was your opponent who had made the first illegal move. What's wrong you with you? This doesn't require any kind of logical hocus-pocus.

AR

True, capturing the king should make it a finality. Once in a very low time scramble, WK on b4, BK on d4 I played as white Kc4?! (on purpose), black played h2. I played Kxd4 1-0.

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 05:13 PM
Classic example - holding the ball in Aussie Rules, but don't expect Jenni to be relating to that either. :)

This is a great one. A player's deemed to be holding the ball if tackled, does not dispose of the ball (or disposes incorrectly) but did have prior opportunity for disposal. The length of time is most likely 1 second or under.

However, this is actually slightly different from the older holding the ball rule that dictated a player must be attempting to dispose of the ball when tackled. Now if a player has no prior opportunity he can simply hold the ball in without penalty - something I don't particularly like.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 05:24 PM
I sometimes disagree with Gijssen strongly. For instance:

I thought part of his response to my question about illegal move/legal position was simply total nonsense.
I agree.


I disagree with his claim that the arbiter should not judge the final position, only the subsequent play, in Art 10.2 draw claims where play on is called and a flag later falls. There is nothing in the rules to support such an interpretation at all.
I agree.


This is more procedural but I don't agree with his "wait until it happens" principle in response to unusual hypothetical positions. I think good risk management involves anticipating such positions before they occur. Even if you only stop one incident in the entire history of chess it's worth it - what if that incident happens in a World Champs final or something? The consequences for the game could be very severe.
I agree with this too.


Bill - if the Rules Committee ruled that king captures are illegal in 1998 then isn't that the last word from FIDE on the matter and shouldn't we accept that, but each decide for ourselves what the penalty should be (if any)?
I agree in that as it currently stands the arbiter should decide what the penalty is (if any). He should however announce this prior to the start of the tournament.


Or are you arguing that the Rules Committee decision is actually either invalid or not binding?
I believe their ruling is binding, I just dont think it is correct.
As such I would like to see them reverse this decision and instead insert that taking the king is a legal means of demonstrating the player left his king in check just as it was back prior to 1992.


But what if player A is himself in check? Take this example from the Tassie Lightning this year. I played Qd1-e2+ and my opponent extremely kindly responded ...Qh4xh2#, so I claimed a win by illegal move. But if I had, instead of claiming the win by illegal move, played QxKe8 (in a comp where king captures were allowed) then my move QxKe8 would have clearly been illegal under the Laws. (Art 3.9: No piece can be moved that will expose its own king to check or leave its own king in check.)

Therefore it does not follow that all king captures in blitz are legal moves.
I agree that is why the wording in the pre-1992 rules was ideal where it said "or captures the King as valid proof ".

The current Article C3 could easily be modified to reintroduce that intent. e.g. An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win either before making his own move or where the player has left his king in check, by capturing the players king.

Kevin Bonham
04-08-2004, 06:18 PM
I made a brief submission to the current overhaul saying that whatever decision they wanted to make, they should at least make a decision and stick to it rather than leaving this king capture business up in the air. While I prefer king capture to be banned, I'd far rather have it reintroduced than continue with this uncertainty.

Javier Gil
04-08-2004, 09:23 PM
Another point which shouldn't be understimated is that the reason why this rule was changed was NOT that the community of chess players demanded a change. It was changed because someone at FIDE suggested it, there wasn't any need for it.
The rules of chess are changed and the players have no say. (silence of the lambs).
The power to change rules should emanate from the whole chess comunity.

Garvinator
04-08-2004, 09:26 PM
The power to change rules should emanate from the whole chess comunity.
the rules of any sport should be changed to improve the sport as a whole, not just because the chess community thinks of a rule to change.

You could easily have a situation where alot of ppl dont know the rules, but want a rule change anyway.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 09:41 PM
Another point which shouldn't be understimated is that the reason why this rule was changed was NOT that the community of chess players demanded a change. It was changed because someone at FIDE suggested it, there wasn't any need for it.
The rules of chess are changed and the players have no say. (silence of the lambs).
The power to change rules should emanate from the whole chess comunity.
The real poblem is that some members of the rules Committee seem to have no understanding of the history of the rules.
Gijssen said in his reply to me on Chesscafe;
Thank you, Bill, for your excellent survey of capturing the King. Frankly
speaking, I was not familiar with a large part of the history.

Javier Gil
04-08-2004, 09:50 PM
You could easily have a situation where alot of ppl dont know the rules, but want a rule change anyway

Yes, well, I accept democracy.
Anyway, what you say is very unlikely to happen. I'm more concerned about situations where the power to change things resides in the hands of just a few people, sometimes just one person... now that worries me.
I accept the fact that for practical reasons, sometimes the so called representatives of the chess players (arbiters??????) have to vote on our behalf without actually having asked us, but at least some logical mechanism should be respected. I don't think anybody in the world had actually ever officially complained for having lost a game by having his King taken in a blitz game.
It's not like if the following had happened:

1- Players from federations all over the world are complaining about losing like this.
2- A couple of federations have been sued.
3- People are no longer playing blitz.
4- Urgent meeting at FIDe.
5- .... etc.

No, it was like this:

1- Guess what, we thought we'd like to introduce this change (so that you know that we exist). :)
2- You players keep quiet, we coudln't care less about your opinion, you have no say.

Alan Shore
04-08-2004, 10:10 PM
Yes, well, I accept democracy.
Anyway, what you say is very unlikely to happen. I'm more concerned about situations where the power to change things resides in the hands of just a few people, sometimes just one person... now that worries me.
I accept the fact that for practical reasons, sometimes the so called representatives of the chess players (arbiters??????) have to vote on our behalf without actually having asked us, but at least some logical mechanism should be respected. I don't think anybody in the world had actually ever officially complained for having lost a game by having his King taken in a blitz game.
It's not like if the following had happened:

1- Players from federations all over the world are complaining about losing like this.
2- A couple of federations have been sued.
3- People are no longer playing blitz.
4- Urgent meeting at FIDe.
5- .... etc.

No, it was like this:

1- Guess what, we thought we'd like to introduce this change (so that you know that we exist). :)
2- You players keep quiet, we coudln't care less about your opinion, you have no say.

Beautifully summed up Javier. All too often the organising bodies simply do not listen to the players. The old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' comes to mind in this case - people are used to it and happy with king taking and there is insufficient reason to change it.

By the way, in keeping with this theme, I will permit participants in my tournament to use headphones/music/walkmans/cd players Mr Gletsos.

Bill Gletsos
04-08-2004, 11:05 PM
Beautifully summed up Javier. All too often the organising bodies simply do not listen to the players. The old adage 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' comes to mind in this case - people are used to it and happy with king taking and there is insufficient reason to change it.

By the way, in keeping with this theme, I will permit participants in my tournament to use headphones/music/walkmans/cd players Mr Gletsos.
Do what you like in your tournament. Given the nature of the event I doubt the players would know enough about their rights regarding appeal committees.
The NSWCA however wont be changing its rules in this regard.
Nummerous players complained about it.
A number of arbiters recommend action in their arbiter reports, including Charles Z.
The NSWCA Council acted.
There has been no complaints by players that personal musical devices are banned in the playing area.

Alan Shore
08-08-2004, 12:40 PM
The UQ Soiree tournament was a fun event enjoyed by all, with 65 participants and 16 college teams. The lightning swiss was won by Boucher of Kings College. The ICC trophy was won by Emmanuel College, defeating St Johns 2.5 - 1.5 in the final four board playoff between the two top finishing colleges in the lightning. After this, IM Stephen Solomon gave a 25 board simultaneous exhibition, winning all games.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 12:45 PM
Well done Bruce.

Did you have any interesting arbitering issues during the lightning.

PHAT
08-08-2004, 01:27 PM
Well done Bruce.


Good on ya, Bill Gletsos, NSWCA President. You just keep sucking up to a Queenslander for his different event, and make sure you continue putting sch.t on this New South Welshman for putting on a different event. :clap:

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 02:02 PM
Good on ya, Bill Gletsos, NSWCA President. You just keep sucking up to a Queenslander for his different event, and make sure you continue putting sch.t on this New South Welshman for putting on a different event. :clap:
There is no comparison between your event and Bruces event in queensland.

I criticise you because you put sch.t on everyone without any actual facts.
You did nothing when given the opportunity to make a contribution whilst on the NSWCA Council.
You are a joke.

Alan Shore
08-08-2004, 02:29 PM
Well done Bruce.

Did you have any interesting arbitering issues during the lightning.

Actually there was Bill! There was quite a tricky one (involving king take too!) that involved a player taking a king just as his time ran out. Having ruled king taking legal, the issue came down to whether the king was taken while the player still had any time and whether the opponent had claimed flag before the completed move. From what I could ascertain (I wasn't watching that board at the time) the two things happened simultaneously. As this was the case I suggested the game be called a draw, to which both players were happy with. I seemed to recall a precedent for this in a QLD Junior Lightning some 6 years ago between Timbi Poon and Andrew Vandermeer.

What do you reckon, right decision in the circumstances?


Also in the final, Emmanuel were up 2-1 with the game on board 1 still going. With 3 seconds left, the Emmanuel player captured the St Johns player's final pawn, his flag falling 4 moves later in a R+K v K ending. Many first thought this meant a win for the St Johns player, making the score 2-2 and giving St Johns the trophy (they were higher on points from the Swiss event, I specified at the beginning 2-2 would mean a win to St Johns). However, obviously the game was a draw, giving the win to Emmanuel. (Btw, the final was played at 10 mins/side).

Garvinator
08-08-2004, 03:31 PM
Actually there was Bill! There was quite a tricky one (involving king take too!) that involved a player taking a king just as his time ran out. Having ruled king taking legal, the issue came down to whether the king was taken while the player still had any time and whether the opponent had claimed flag before the completed move. From what I could ascertain (I wasn't watching that board at the time) the two things happened simultaneously. As this was the case I suggested the game be called a draw, to which both players were happy with. I seemed to recall a precedent for this in a QLD Junior Lightning some 6 years ago between Timbi Poon and Andrew Vandermeer.

What do you reckon, right decision in the circumstances?
I remember a similar situation was debated a while ago where checkmate is delievered in a normal game at the point that time runs out. The verdict there was that the board position rules. therefore the person who delivered checkmate wins.

I would then take it that in this position you have given, the person who took the king wins. Had you banned king capture, no problem :owned: ;)

Garvinator
08-08-2004, 03:32 PM
I seemed to recall a precedent for this in a QLD Junior Lightning some 6 years ago between Timbi Poon and Andrew Vandermeer.
who was the arbiter?

Alan Shore
08-08-2004, 03:35 PM
who was the arbiter?

Um, good question.. may have been Kerry Corker.. or possibly Nik Stawski.

Garvinator
08-08-2004, 03:44 PM
Um, good question.. may have been Kerry Corker.. or possibly Nik Stawski.
i would have lost some serious cash on that one :P

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 03:55 PM
Actually there was Bill! There was quite a tricky one (involving king take too!) that involved a player taking a king just as his time ran out. Having ruled king taking legal, the issue came down to whether the king was taken while the player still had any time and whether the opponent had claimed flag before the completed move. From what I could ascertain (I wasn't watching that board at the time) the two things happened simultaneously. As this was the case I suggested the game be called a draw, to which both players were happy with. I seemed to recall a precedent for this in a QLD Junior Lightning some 6 years ago between Timbi Poon and Andrew Vandermeer.

What do you reckon, right decision in the circumstances?
Given the apparent lack of witnesses and even then you as the arbiter would have to be satisified they were relaible and unbiased, the correct decision was to award the win to the player who captured the king.

My reasoning is based on the case cited by gg. Note that with the mating move the move is completed as soon as the players hand leaves the piece.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 04:01 PM
BTW the situation that gg alludes to occurred at an Australian rapid play with a number of GM's including the Polgar sisters. I was also one of the Arbiters.
Manuel Weeks was the Chief Arbiter.
It happened in the bottom Division. I think Larry Ermacora was the Arbiter.
I remember Manuel and I discussing it amongst ourselves and with some GM's.
There were no witnesses.
The win was awarded to the player who mated his opponent.

I seem to recall Gijssen discussing a similar situation where he also stated the mate won.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2004, 06:19 PM
If king capture is allowed, at what precise point is the king said to be "captured" and the win claim activated? Obviously the capturing piece must have moved to the square and been released, and the opposing king must have been touched but at what point is the king "captured"? The point where it leaves the board?

Art 3.1 If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 08:05 PM
If king capture is allowed, at what precise point is the king said to be "captured" and the win claim activated? Obviously the capturing piece must have moved to the square and been released, and the opposing king must have been touched but at what point is the king "captured"? The point where it leaves the board?

Art 3.1 If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent's piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.
I'm guessing your question is directed to me.

I would say that the capture is complete when either:
a) the opponents piece is removed from the square and replaced by the players piece and the player has released his own piece on the square.
b) the players piece is placed on the square and released and the opponents piece is removed from the square.

Kevin Bonham
08-08-2004, 11:42 PM
I'm guessing your question is directed to me.

You'll do at least as well as any.


I would say that the capture is complete when either:
a) the opponents piece is removed from the square and replaced by the players piece and the player has released his own piece on the square.
b) the players piece is placed on the square and released and the opponents piece is removed from the square.

I agree with that.

Alan Shore
08-08-2004, 11:55 PM
I'm guessing your question is directed to me.

I would say that the capture is complete when either:
a) the opponents piece is removed from the square and replaced by the players piece and the player has released his own piece on the square.
b) the players piece is placed on the square and released and the opponents piece is removed from the square.

That would be my definition too. There was a point of contention as to whether the king capture was a completed move before his time elapsed though, neither player could give a definitive answer in that respect.

Bill Gletsos
08-08-2004, 11:57 PM
That would be my definition too. There was a point of contention as to whether the king capture was a completed move before his time elapsed though, neither player could give a definitive answer in that respect.
In other words they disagreed. ;)
In which case the the player capturing the king wins.

Alan Shore
09-08-2004, 12:02 AM
In other words they disagreed. ;)
In which case the the player capturing the king wins.

Oh, ok I see. Guess I've gained some exp. points now. :D

Garvinator
09-08-2004, 12:13 AM
Oh, ok I see. Guess I've gained some exp. points now. :D
basically as an arbiter, if there is no other convincing definite evidence, the board position rules.

Bill Gletsos
09-08-2004, 12:16 AM
Oh, ok I see. Guess I've gained some exp. points now. :D
There would be some people who would disagree.
However the critical factor is this.
The onus is on the player making the claim of a win on time to be able to prove it. Since in the circumstances he cannot then his claim must be disallowed.
Its the same as the situation with a claim by a player for triple repetition.
Without a score sheet to back it up (which is impossible in lightning) or a reliable witness, the arbiter has no choice but to disallow the draw claim.

Trizza
11-08-2004, 12:00 AM
...The onus is on the player making the claim of a win on time to be able to prove it...

A slightly related issue which I've wondered about for some time:

In the 2003 WA Lightning Championship I had an interesting situation. I had king and rook versus king but was still about 5 or 6 moves from mate. Both my opponent and I had been playing very quickly and I glanced at the clock. My opponent's time was 0.00 and I said 'time' when I had 2 seconds left, but forgot to stop the clock. The arbiter (who was watching and could verify this sequence of events) awarded a win to me.

Was this correct?

P.S. I now see there is already a thread devoted to this topic, so answers to this post should probably be posted there. However, Barry has already replied here, so hopefully it doesn't matter.

Rincewind
11-08-2004, 12:11 AM
A slightly related issue which I've wondered about for some time:

In the 2003 WA Lightning Championship I had an interesting situation. I had king and rook versus king but was still about 5 or 6 moves from mate. Both my opponent and I had been playing very quickly and I glanced at the clock. My opponent's time was 0.00 and I said time when I had 2 seconds left, but forgot to stop the clock. The arbiter (who was watching and could verify this sequence of events) awarded a win to me.

Good question. My understanding is you need to make a claim to the arbiter. If you say time, the arbiter is present and sees you have time remaining on the clock then there should be no need to physically stop the clock. You claim was made with time on your clock and therefore a win to you sounds fair to me.

EDIT

Note that this is wrong. As detailed below the Blitz rules is you must stop your clock. Failure to do so should result in a draw.

Trizza
11-08-2004, 12:19 AM
Thanks Barry for the quick feedback.

In the other thread Shaun said you need time on your clock to claim a win on time. The easiest way to establish this if an arbiter is not present is to stop the clock. I didn't know if this would actually be required in a situation like mine though.

I'm sure others will have an opinion...

Garvinator
11-08-2004, 12:21 AM
pressing the clock is the safest option, just as a precaution.

Trizza
11-08-2004, 12:26 AM
pressing the clock is the safest option, just as a precaution.

Fair point, but in the mad scramble I was so relieved after saying 'time' that I simply forgot.

I know Bill was talking about a slightly different situation, but I still think his comment might have some relevance to mine.

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 12:31 AM
A slightly related issue which I've wondered about for some time:

In the 2003 WA Lightning Championship I had an interesting situation. I had king and rook versus king but was still about 5 or 6 moves from mate. Both my opponent and I had been playing very quickly and I glanced at the clock. My opponent's time was 0.00 and I said time when I had 2 seconds left, but forgot to stop the clock. The arbiter (who was watching and could verify this sequence of events) awarded a win to me.

Was this correct?

P.S. I now see there is already a thread devoted to this topic, so answers to this post should probably be posted there. However, Barry has already replied here, so hopefully it doesn't matter.
The ruling depends on the game.

In a normal game or in a quickplay finish where Artilce 10 applies the relevant article is 6.9 which states:
A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

However in a rapid event or in blitz the relevant artilce is B7 which states:
To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

Also relevant in rapid and blitz is Article B8 which states:
If both flags have fallen the game is drawn.

I assume from your comments above your clock hit zero as well because you did not stop it.
If that was the case then I think you were fortunate to be awarded the win because it appears the arbiter did not know the rules.

It is clear from the above articles your game should have been drawn.

Kevin Bonham
11-08-2004, 12:36 AM
A slightly related issue which I've wondered about for some time:

In the 2003 WA Lightning Championship I had an interesting situation. I had king and rook versus king but was still about 5 or 6 moves from mate. Both my opponent and I had been playing very quickly and I glanced at the clock. My opponent's time was 0.00 and I said 'time' when I had 2 seconds left, but forgot to stop the clock. The arbiter (who was watching and could verify this sequence of events) awarded a win to me.

I missed a win last year when I claimed by saying "time" (you would think an arbiter would know better, but...). My flag fell about half a second after I finished saying the word but my opponent claimed they happened at the same time. To be fair to him, that could well be how he perceived it. The only witness was confused. Arbiter (correctly) ruled a draw. No big issue there.

Your case is interesting. The Rapidplay laws which also apply to Blitz say:

B6. The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall.

B7. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

A strict reading of these rules suggests to me that the arbiter was wrong. There was no valid claim so therefore there was a flag fall signal by the arbiter, which is not allowed.

An appeal by your opponent would have been interesting - but very few opponents would bother as it would be seen as rather unsporting.

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 12:39 AM
Good point Kevin.
I should have also included B6 in my post.

Trizza
11-08-2004, 12:40 AM
Thanks Bill and Kevin.

I had a feeling I was a bit lucky (yes, my clock had also gone down to 0). I was very unsure, but the arbiter and several other players assured me I was entitled to a win (!) My opponent acted in a very gentlemanly way by not raising an objection, but later on I felt a bit guilty about getting the point.

Alan Shore
11-08-2004, 12:45 AM
If it was a win on time on your opponent's move and you still had time and he didn't press his clock after his flag has fallen the clock should show you still have time. If you call time and he presses his clock after he's hit zero, I hit my side of the clock - it's much quicker than pressing stop. After hitting your side, then press stop if you must (although it shouldn't matter by then). Just one thing I've learned in quickplay ;)

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 12:55 AM
(you would think an arbiter would know better, but...).
This is a very telling statement which I can relate to.

I was playing in and arbitering my local club lightning competition. King captures were legal.
I had just played a mating move and did not stop my clock, because doing so was unnecessary.
Of course my opponent just simply captured my King which I had left in check.
I accepted the situation and scored the result as a win to my opponent and continued with the following rounds.

Now there just so happens to be a flaw in all that which did not occur to me until the following day. (I'm sure if this had been a game in which I was not a participant I would have realised immediately what the flaw was).

The point is I had not pressed my clock. As such I was not compelled to make the mating move. I could have just as easily removed my king from check, pressed my clock and mated my opponent 1 move later. :doh: :doh:

As Kevin said you would think an arbiter would know better. :hmm:

Alan Shore
11-08-2004, 12:59 AM
Haha Bill.. yeah I've been there before. Still, I'm sure I've performed more swindles than been swindled in instances like that ;)

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 01:03 AM
If it was a win on time on your opponent's move and you still had time and he didn't press his clock after his flag has fallen the clock should show you still have time. If you call time and he presses his clock after he's hit zero, I hit my side of the clock - it's much quicker than pressing stop. After hitting your side, then press stop if you must (although it shouldn't matter by then).
Pressing the stop would always matter especially if you only have a couple of seconds left yourself.
Also you could have a problem if your opponent was a stickler for the rules.
It might be argued you are not entitled to start his clock if you have not moved, only stop his clock.
Your opponent (especially an unscupulous one) might argue your starting of his clock is what caused his time to hit zero, especially if the arbiter is not actually present.
Your starting of his clock may therefore cause an arbiter to give your opponent some additional time.

Alan Shore
11-08-2004, 01:11 AM
Pressing the stop would always matter especially if you only have a couple of seconds left yourself.
Also you could have a problem if your opponent was a stickler for the rules.
It might be argued you are not entitled to start his clock if you have not moved, only stop his clock.
Your opponent (especially an unscupulous one) might argue your starting of his clock is what caused his time to hit zero, especially if the arbiter is not actually present.
Your starting of his clock may therefore cause an arbiter to give your opponent some additional time.

I'd be tempted to slap my opponent for daring to make such a claim! I'm too used to playing friendly games...

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 01:13 AM
Haha Bill.. yeah I've been there before. Still, I'm sure I've performed more swindles than been swindled in instances like that ;)
Yeah the point was I was well aware of the rules regarding illegal moves in Blitz.
I knew that you could not be forced to make the illegal move if you had not pressed your clock.

However I suspect that because I had in my mind completed my move (I had mated him) it did not occur to me that I had not completed the move with regards to illegal moves.
After all in the circumstances having my King captured was a minor shock. :lol: :lol:

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 01:14 AM
I'd be tempted to slap my opponent for daring to make such a claim! I'm too used to playing friendly games...
You have obviously not played some NSW players. ;)

Rincewind
11-08-2004, 07:30 AM
B7. To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped.[/i]

:doh:

I knew I should have checked.

Tristan, apologies for the misleading post earlier.

Trizza
11-08-2004, 07:05 PM
:doh:

I knew I should have checked.

Tristan, apologies for the misleading post earlier.

No problem, Bill and Kevin both replied shortly after you.

Despite the problem seemingly being resolved, if I was the arbiter in a WA tournament I can think of certain players who wouldn't take too kindly to such a ruling :)

Also, I think many would be surprised e.g. I was the only 1 at the time who thought the game might be drawn. Despite my big mouth, I managed to get away with it :)

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 07:08 PM
No problem, Bill and Kevin both replied shortly after you.

Despite the problem seemingly being resolved, if I was the arbiter in a WA tournament I can think of certain players who wouldn't take too kindly to such a ruling :)

Also, I think many would be surprised e.g. I was the only 1 at the time who thought the game might be drawn. Despite my big mouth, I managed to get away with it :)
You will find that many players even those that having been playing for many years, dont really know the rules.
Of course that wont stop them from arguing. ;)

Trizza
11-08-2004, 08:01 PM
You will find that many players even those that having been playing for many years, dont really know the rules.
Of course that wont stop them from arguing. ;)

Of course!

After looking through the FIDE rules on their website earlier this year and reading some of Gijssen's columns I realised how many rules I didn't fully understand.

antichrist
03-05-2005, 10:32 AM
When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2005, 12:22 PM
When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.Firstly there is no such thing as a Swiss round robin draw. A draw may be a swiss or a round robin. It isnt both.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?There is no problem with the integrity of the draw. The Swiss rules state players should play other players on the same score if at all possible. Therefore if a particular arbiter in a non NSWCA event chose to give a player 1.5/2 then that player should be paired with other players on 1.5 if possible, not players on 2. If the player were to be paired with players on 2 points then the arbiter should have given him 2/2, not 1.5/2 in the first place.

Note in NSWCA events a player can only receive half point byes and no more than 2 of them. Hence if he came in late after two rounds he would receive 1.0/2 and be paired with other players on 1 point in the third round if possible.

antichrist
04-05-2005, 04:20 PM
Firstly there is no such thing as a Swiss round robin draw. A draw may be a swiss or a round robin. It isnt both.
There is no problem with the integrity of the draw. The Swiss rules state players should play other players on the same score if at all possible. Therefore if a particular arbiter in a non NSWCA event chose to give a player 1.5/2 then that player should be paired with other players on 1.5 if possible, not players on 2. If the player were to be paired with players on 2 points then the arbiter should have given him 2/2, not 1.5/2 in the first place.

Note in NSWCA events a player can only receive half point byes and no more than 2 of them. Hence if he came in late after two rounds he would receive 1.0/2 and be paired with other players on 1 point in the third round if possible.

thanks, I consider two out of two as being too generous for a latecomer, and one out of two as being too poor for a top end high calibre player. A/C's comp - A/C's rules, have done a few times and no complaints from anyone.

"I mean, if our largest poster can't have his own personalised BUMP thread then what is the value of the title of largest poster?"

pax
05-05-2005, 03:30 PM
When doing the Swiss round robin draw by hand (computers?) the DOP can insert a high-ranking late comer in maybe giving 1.5 points out of two.

For the integrity of the draw I assume that the late-comer be pared as if he had two points, otherwise if pared at 1.5 he is receiving a weaker player then what he has been given the 1.5 points for, i.e., for being a 2 point calibre player?

In the 1994 Australian Open, the Vietnamese player Dinh Duc Trong missed the first three rounds due to visa problems. He was awarded three half point byes for the missed rounds, and accelerated by a further point (for how many rounds I can't recall).

He went on to win the tournament (totally on his merits, remaining undefeated, and beating his main rival Alex Wohl).

antichrist
05-05-2005, 05:03 PM
In the 1994 Australian Open, the Vietnamese player Dinh Duc Trong missed the first three rounds due to visa problems. He was awarded three half point byes for the missed rounds, and accelerated by a further point (for how many rounds I can't recall).

He went on to win the tournament (totally on his merits, remaining undefeated, and beating his main rival Alex Wohl).

I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"? And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.

Bill Gletsos
05-05-2005, 05:47 PM
I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"?They should have entered on time along with all the other players. If they enter late thats the penalty they pay. In pax's example the player's problem was due to issues with his visa and immigration.

And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.there is no guarantee that a so called 2 point caliber player will be on 2 points are two rounds.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.You would but that doesnt mean you are correct.

antichrist
05-05-2005, 07:28 PM
They should have entered on time along with all the other players. If they enter late thats the penalty they pay. In pax's example the player's problem was due to issues with his visa and immigration.
there is no guarantee that a so called 2 point caliber player will be on 2 points are two rounds.

A/C
Of course but only rarely. In the great majority of cases the player receiving the late player (in my comp 1.5/2) is badly done by, and in your comp 1.0/2 is grossly badly done by. Has this point being considered before?

Originally Posted by antichrist
I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.
BG
You would but that doesnt mean you are correct.
A/C
Nor that you are disagreeing.

pax
05-05-2005, 09:43 PM
I am not sure what is meant by "accelerated". Are you hinting that you are agreeing with me on this one.

According to Bill's post a person only given one out of two is "almost" knocked out of the comp. sort of "why bother entering then"? And then is unfair for other players as a two out of two calibre player is only playing a 1/2 calibre player. Is especially unfair for his/her opponent in round three.

I think my rules are fairer to all concerned.

I mean he had an actual score of 1.5/3, but was paired as if on 2.5/3. The extra point for pairing purposes was removed over (I think) the next two rounds. The "acceleration" was mainly to prevent bad mismatches in rounds 4 and 5. I don't think everybody was totally happy with the arrangement, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise.

antichrist
05-05-2005, 10:00 PM
I mean he had an actual score of 1.5/3, but was paired as if on 2.5/3. The extra point for pairing purposes was removed over (I think) the next two rounds. The "acceleration" was mainly to prevent bad mismatches in rounds 4 and 5. I don't think everybody was totally happy with the arrangement, but it was a pretty reasonable compromise.

Thanks very much, that is the exact point I was making. If it is good enough for such an important comp then it is good enough for every comp.