PDA

View Full Version : Article 8.1



Garvinator
22-07-2005, 02:30 AM
The article reads:

Article 8: The recording of the moves

8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the `scoresheet` prescribed for the competition. It is forbidden to write the moves in advance, unless the player is claiming a draw according to Article 9.2 or 9.3.

A player may reply to his opponent`s move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an assistant, who is acceptable to the arbiter, may be provided by the player to write the moves. His clock shall be adjusted by the arbiter in an equitable way.

13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning,
2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4. declaring the game to be lost,
5. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
6. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
7. expulsion from the event.

Ok, at our club, we had a situation and I was arbiter. Player A record a move before playing it and I warned Player A and briefly explained why. Player A accepted the explaination and the game continued. A few moves later, Player A again records move first before playing it and was warned a second time and informed that a third offence would result in loss of game.

About ten moves later, Player A recorded move before playing it on the board and I informed him that he loses the game.

Now i have a question after some conversations at the end of the night from our club. Would other arbiters regard my actions as correct? Would this be the course of action other arbiters would take? etc etc from there.

I dont think there is any other course of actions as it is a third penalty situation.

Ian Rout
22-07-2005, 09:46 AM
If there is some reason to believe that the player is deliberately trying it on then it may be reasonable to nip it in the bud. If it's just an ingrained pattern of many years that hasn't been unlearned in three weeks then I think it's somewhat harsh on both the player and on other players who see a rival getting a free point, and a somewhat unsatifying way for of winning for the opponent.

If you are concerned about multiple strikes than I think the first one or two instances could be dealt with by an informal reminder rather than an official warning. Some sort of intervening stage of a time penalty between a warning and a default also seems sensible.

arosar
22-07-2005, 11:32 AM
I dont think there is any other course of actions as it is a third penalty situation.

This statement is a misinterpretation of the rules gray. Unless you want to have a bad reputation as the George Bush of Australian chess, then you should learn to give people some leeway. (See Rout's post).

I mean, we're talking about an entire generation of chess players who probably read Kotov and learned to record before moving.

Rule 13.4 does not say, "3 strikes and you lose". The rule merely makes available to you, the arbiter, a menu of penalties. Giving away free points and making people feel bad should be the last of your choices.

AR

Kevin Bonham
22-07-2005, 02:10 PM
As the rule has only recently been changed I think it is important for arbiters to be lenient on players while players take time to get used to the new situation. I'm not penalising players for this one at all at the moment, simply trying to spread the word and then warning repeat offenders. Even if a penalty was to be applied I think a small time penalty would be best, say two minutes off clock. I would only forfeit a player for it if it was obvious they were doing it deliberately knowing it was illegal. We should be aware that many players are needing to break the tournament habits of a lifetime in getting used to this rule change. Disclaimer: I'm one of them, although I'm doing pretty well with it so far and only slipping up about once a game.

I think your action was way too harsh and arosar is right - there is no reason the arbiter has to act after three strikes. But it is very commendable that you started a thread on it and gave others a chance to comment on your actions.

Garvinator
22-07-2005, 02:37 PM
As the rule has only recently been changed I think it is important for arbiters to be lenient on players while players take time to get used to the new situation. I'm not penalising players for this one at all at the moment, simply trying to spread the word and then warning repeat offenders.

So when then do you start penalising?


Even if a penalty was to be applied I think a small time penalty would be best, say two minutes off clock. I would only forfeit a player for it if it was obvious they were doing it deliberately knowing it was illegal. We should be aware that many players are needing to break the tournament habits of a lifetime in getting used to this rule change. Disclaimer: I'm one of them, although I'm doing pretty well with it so far and only slipping up about once a game.

I think your action was way too harsh and arosar is right - there is no reason the arbiter has to act after three strikes. But it is very commendable that you started a thread on it and gave others a chance to comment on your actions.

I am not going to agree with arosar on principle, you know that ;)

In fact at the club, in the discussions afterwards, most of the players didnt have a problem with my decision. The player had been warned twice with no penalty and only after the THIRD infraction, was the loss of game penalty applied. The player was warned after the second time that a third infraction would be loss of game.

Some said that perhaps just keep applying time penalties would be appropriate, but where does that end. How do you apply them, keep adding two minutes, half time remaining etc. How many warnings and penalties need to be applied in one game?

As was discussed in the sydney grade matches thread, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws.

The only analogous situation that comes to mind in 'normal' chess is the illegal move rule. Interestingly, that is loss of game after three infractions.

For the record- I didnt want to apply the loss of game penalty- but thought it was the ONLY penalty that could be applied after two previous infractions.

I actually thought I was being generous :eek: by not applying a time penalty for the second infraction.

Now for the rules people at fide- STIPULATE A PENALTY THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS. DONT LEAVE IT TO THE ARBITERS, or penalties will be different at each tournament.

Maybe clarification of this rule and penalties should be sent to Geurt.

Kerry Stead
22-07-2005, 02:56 PM
So when then do you start penalising?

I am not going to agree with arosar on principle, you know that ;)

In fact at the club, in the discussions afterwards, most of the players didnt have a problem with my decision. The player had been warned twice with no penalty and only after the THIRD infraction, was the loss of game penalty applied. The player was warned after the second time that a third infraction would be loss of game.

Some said that perhaps just keep applying time penalties would be appropriate, but where does that end. How do you apply them, keep adding two minutes, half time remaining etc. How many warnings and penalties need to be applied in one game?

As was discussed in the sydney grade matches thread, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws.

The only analogous situation that comes to mind in 'normal' chess is the illegal move rule. Interestingly, that is loss of game after three infractions.

For the record- I didnt want to apply the loss of game penalty- but thought it was the ONLY penalty that could be applied after two previous infractions.

I actually thought I was being generous :eek: by not applying a time penalty for the second infraction.

Now for the rules people at fide- STIPULATE A PENALTY THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS. DONT LEAVE IT TO THE ARBITERS, or penalties will be different at each tournament.

Maybe clarification of this rule and penalties should be sent to Geurt.

Garvin, I'd run with Kevin on this one.
Comparing it to the rule about illegal moves is not quite correct - after all, its NEVER been OK to make illegal moves in a game of chess ... for years, it has been accepted as OK to write a move down first and then make it. The changes have only been brought in recently, so as Kevin said, you must allow some leeway for adjustment.
Personally I would have run with two warnings as you did, and on the third breach, award a time penalty of some description. Awarding a game should be one of the final options that is considered, and to my mind would require some sort of deliberate breaking of the rules to come into play.
If you don't want to apply a particular penalty, then don't!

arosar
22-07-2005, 03:07 PM
Now for the rules people at fide- STIPULATE A PENALTY THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS. DONT LEAVE IT TO THE ARBITERS, or penalties will be different at each tournament.

Maybe clarification of this rule and penalties should be sent to Geurt.

Read the Preface.

AR

Ian Rout
22-07-2005, 04:11 PM
The only analogous situation that comes to mind in 'normal' chess is the illegal move rule. Interestingly, that is loss of game after three infractions.

I think that where this analogy breaks down is that making an illegal move (on the board) does potentially cause distraction and interference to the opponent and can give a significant benefit to the perpetrator in engineering a break. On the other hand writing and playing moves in the wrong order, even three times, is merely a procedural breach - and moreover one that didn't exist last month. Also making legal moves is a fundamental part of the game.

To find an analogy, try looking at offences in other sports that incur disqualification. We are then in such territory as punching below the belt (boxing), signing an incorrect card (golf), interference (running, cycling, motor sports), taking a headstart (running, swimming), proven use of performance enhancing drugs.

Incorrect note-taking just doesn't seem to fit, except by comparison with signing a golf card, and there it's not the same thing because a golfer can change their score whereas recording the move first doesn't give you an extra pawn.

The thing to remember is that chess is meant to won by checkmate, not administrative instrument. There has to be a significant breach to justify changing that priority.

Kerry Stead
22-07-2005, 04:24 PM
The thing to remember is that chess is meant to won by checkmate, not administrative instrument. There has to be a significant breach to justify changing that priority.
Excellent observation Ian!
Applicable to many situations ...

Ian_Rogers
24-07-2005, 06:34 AM
Over here at the Amsterdam Open, the rule is simply not being enforced. Players who have always written down their moves before playing them are continuing to do so without fear. I think most arbiters here assume that the new rule is a piece of lunacy by FIDE/ Guert which will (hopefully) soon be reversed.
Ian

Garvinator
24-07-2005, 09:56 AM
I think most arbiters here assume that the new rule is a piece of lunacy by FIDE/ Guert which will (hopefully) soon be reversed.
Ian
Do you know this for a fact? If so, then what other rules are the arbiters going to ignore just because they dont agree with them. Where does it stop.

arosar
24-07-2005, 10:24 AM
If so, then what other rules are the arbiters going to ignore just because they dont agree with them. Where does it stop.

It will stop when players and arbiters have no reason to question the rules.

The rule is stupid, so say the community of chess players and sane arbiters. Are you going to be a sane arbiter?

AR

Garvinator
24-07-2005, 07:40 PM
It will stop when players and arbiters have no reason to question the rules.

The rule is stupid, so say the community of chess players and sane arbiters. Are you going to be a sane arbiter?

AR
I run chess tournaments to what the rule book says, no more, no less.

Alan Shore
24-07-2005, 08:02 PM
I run chess tournaments to what the rule book says, no more, no less.

Oh well, that's one approach. There are some rules however I cannot in good conscience accept and prefer the methodology of common-sense.

eclectic
24-07-2005, 08:25 PM
if there are those here who say rule 8.1 is so stupid and that you should be allowed to write your move before you play it then i'd be prepared to agree so long as when my opponent writes down a move which is a blunder i can summon the arbiter and have that arbiter compel my opponent to play it.

eclectic

antichrist
24-07-2005, 08:34 PM
if there are those here who say rule 8.1 is so stupid and that you should be allowed to write your move before you play it then i'd be prepared to agree so long as when my opponent writes down a move which is a blunder i can summon the arbiter and have that arbiter compel my opponent to play it.

eclectic

But how do you know what your opponent wrote down, unless he/she changes his notation and you ask the arbitar to check it out, is that permissible?

eclectic
24-07-2005, 08:48 PM
But how do you know what your opponent wrote down, unless he/she changes his notation and you ask the arbitar to check it out, is that permissible?

the scoresheet has to be visible at all times doesn't it? ... and we all know how to read upside down when it suits us ... ;)

eclectic

antichrist
24-07-2005, 09:07 PM
the scoresheet has to be visible at all times doesn't it? ... and we all know how to read upside down when it suits us ... ;)

eclectic
Visible at all times except when AR's mate puts his elbow over it when the arbitar queries if he is writing down all the moves when losing on time and position.

Bereaved
24-07-2005, 09:10 PM
If during a cricket game, a ball is abandoned during the run up, it is annulled and of no significance. But a scoresheet in chess is for the recording of the moves played within the game, not those that might have been played, had the player not changed his mind.

What changes upon the writing down of a thing that makes this a necessary part of the decision making process; I have written to do lists before because at times the writing down of a thing is enough to remind one to do it without consulting the list to remind oneself.

I think this falls down when we consider that if a player crosses out a move, and plays a different one, the previous proposed move was in effect a form of analysis at the board.

I also was raised to write down my move prior to playing it, however when the advent of the rule that the scoresheet must be visible at all times to the arbiter, I stopped writing down my move prior to playing it as that just allowed the opponent an extra moment to begin to plan his reply.

I have also played a game in a tournament that seems very applicable to the reasoning behind this change; my opponent wrote down a move and crossed it out three times in succession, and even eventually played the first move they had written down anyway. Alll very well and good, first move written = move played. But why the song and dance? The point is that each and every time my opponent wrote down a move, they immediately looked at my face to guage my reaction. This attempt to pick a move based on my reaction was perhaps not very successful, as the first move was the best one, but didn't change my assessment that the position was already in my favour, and all the moves later crossed out were I think a bit worse than the one played.

But this is the case that made me think of a strange parallel within the laws that suggest that a player may take no recourse to seeking exterior advice from another party; is writing three moves, but playing one, in the above instance an attempt to use my variety of expressions as an additional source of information, given that I was their opponent??

Probably not, but funny in some way anyway ( at least to me!!)

Write the moves that are played, not those you are thinking about, and all of this is irrelevant,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2005, 09:21 PM
the scoresheet has to be visible at all times doesn't it? ... and we all know how to read upside down when it suits us ... ;)Actually Article 8.2 says The scoresheet shall be visible to the arbiter throughout the game.
I recall Geurt mentioning previously if the arbiter isnt present at the board there is no requirement for the scoresheet to be visible.

Bereaved
24-07-2005, 10:28 PM
Hi Bill,
given that I accept this provision of the scoresheet being only required to be seen when the arbiter is present, there would seem little point in hiding it based on the first thing, it only shows moves already made, so no need to hide it, and secondly, what a pest it would be in a game where the requirement owing to a thirty second increment, which is very common in Australia, that one is required to record throughout the game, surely no-one would be silly enough to hide it away, when it must be used to record the next move in the not too distant future?

And why would any Arbiter want players to tuck away their scoresheet and then in turn have to ask to see it puzzles me, though I have seen players doing just this.

And finally, if a player is not obliged to have the scoresheet on display in the arbiter's absence, which I'm not arguing with, why would anyone bother if it meant that a certain portion of time must be spent in the course of the game as to whether the arbiter was in eyeshot to be able to see??

I can think of better things to do with what seems to be a limited amount of time for a game personally...

All the best, and God Bless, Macavity

Bill Gletsos
24-07-2005, 10:36 PM
Hi Bill,
given that I accept this provision of the scoresheet being only required to be seen when the arbiter is present, there would seem little point in hiding it based on the first thing, it only shows moves already made, so no need to hide it, and secondly, what a pest it would be in a game where the requirement owing to a thirty second increment, which is very common in Australia, that one is required to record throughout the game, surely no-one would be silly enough to hide it away, when it must be used to record the next move in the not too distant future?

And why would any Arbiter want players to tuck away their scoresheet and then in turn have to ask to see it puzzles me, though I have seen players doing just this.

And finally, if a player is not obliged to have the scoresheet on display in the arbiter's absence, which I'm not arguing with, why would anyone bother if it meant that a certain portion of time must be spent in the course of the game as to whether the arbiter was in eyeshot to be able to see??If I recall correctly Geurt used the example of a player covering their move with a pen.
I should however have been clearer.
Covering your move under the Laws that came into effect from July 1st is useless however was not so previously when you could write it down before making it on the board.

Bereaved
25-07-2005, 12:40 AM
Hi Bill,
Yes I too was one of the pen brigade at one stage, I was actually referring to people removing the scoresheet from the table and placing it on a book, which in turn sat on their knees.

In my role of Arbiter at various events, I didn't permit the pen after a period of time, as I felt it was a form of gamesmanship,

Take care, and God Bless, Macavity

Garvinator
25-07-2005, 12:49 AM
Hi Bill,
Yes I too was one of the pen brigade at one stage, I was actually referring to people removing the scoresheet from the table and placing it on a book, which in turn sat on their knees.
was it a score book containing previous chess games ;) :uhoh:

Ian_Rogers
25-07-2005, 02:36 PM
The Association of Chess Professionals have already raised the new rule (not writing down your move before you play it) as one of their issues of concern in a meeting with FIDE a few months ago and FIDE agreed to reconsider the issue.
Apparently amending the rule was not raised at the most recent ACP-FIDE meeting, a fortnight ago, so it is hard to know exactly where the matter stands. We might not know until the next meeting of the Rules Commission at the next Olympiad.

Ian

Bill Gletsos
25-07-2005, 02:42 PM
The Association of Chess Professionals have already raised the new rule (not writing down your move before you play it) as one of their issues of concern in a meeting with FIDE a few months ago and FIDE agreed to reconsider the issue.
Apparently amending the rule was not raised at the most recent ACP-FIDE meeting, a fortnight ago, so it is hard to know exactly where the matter stands. We might not know until the next meeting of the Rules Commission at the next Olympiad.

IanI suspect the next opportunity for the Rules commision to discuss it will be at the 76th FIDE Congress in Dresden Germany from 17-15 August 2005.

arosar
25-07-2005, 02:43 PM
I hope it will be changed. As I am certainly one of those who write first, move later. And on many occassions I have changed my mind, erased, wrote another move, then played. Now some people will say this effectively breaches 12.2.a. But I think that is stretching it a bit.

AR

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2005, 03:38 PM
So when then do you start penalising?

I reckon six months to get used to the change is fair.


Some said that perhaps just keep applying time penalties would be appropriate, but where does that end. How do you apply them, keep adding two minutes, half time remaining etc. How many warnings and penalties need to be applied in one game?

There's no reason you need to keep escalating penalties. If the player is clearly not doing it deliberately then you could penalise them a few mins after a sufficient number of infractions and then leave it - at least while the rule is still new. I don't think there's a need at this stage to forfeit for any number of infractions unless the breach is deliberate.


As was discussed in the sydney grade matches thread, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws.

The only analogous situation that comes to mind in 'normal' chess is the illegal move rule. Interestingly, that is loss of game after three infractions.

An illegal move is a serious infraction because, if not corrected, it affects the whole character of the game. Writing down a move before playing it doesn't affect the move as played. There is an argument that it gives a player a very small unfair advantage, but that's all. The situations are not analogous IMO.


Now for the rules people at fide- STIPULATE A PENALTY THAT SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR THIS. DONT LEAVE IT TO THE ARBITERS, or penalties will be different at each tournament.

This is the case for almost every infringement of the Laws as it is. The illegal move rule is a rare exception.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2005, 03:52 PM
As for the issue of whether arbiters should simply ignore the rule change and hope it goes away, I don't agree. We have to enforce the Laws including the bits we don't like and if we have an issue with them then try to get that Law changed for the future (which doesn't seem that hard to do given my experience with 10.2). So we should be phasing this law in gradually on the assumption that it will stay - if it is quickly annulled then little harm is done. I agree that the change is silly - seems to be a kneejerk reaction to the small proportion of players who regularly write down and change.

On the entry form for the next event I'm organising I've added this:

"NOTE: FIDE Laws 2005 apply it is no longer permitted to record moves before playing them. Also, if your mobile phone rings during your game, you will forfeit the game."

arosar
25-07-2005, 04:05 PM
The illegal move rule is a rare exception.

Other than the touch move rule, name me one other rule that forces a player to commit himself to his 'error'.

AR

Garvinator
25-07-2005, 04:18 PM
Sorry, I forgot to add that our club have been doing education campaigns and lectures on the new laws for about the last three months. I had thought that other clubs etc would have been doing the same. I apologise for not stating this earlier.

I think this might explain my surprise at some of the reactions I was getting.

antichrist
25-07-2005, 05:59 PM
Other than the touch move rule, name me one other rule that forces a player to commit himself to his 'error'.

AR

When you resign prematurely and you see a win - ha ha

antichrist
25-07-2005, 06:03 PM
When you re-set a board up incorrectly in a rapid game, once play has re-commenced play you can't go back (hope I got it right). That is how your mate Agulto lost unjustly to Gety(?) at Canterbury SEC and cost him the money.

AND I WAS NOT THE ARBITER AND IF I WAS I WOULD HAVE GOT IT RIGHT!

Rincewind
27-07-2005, 01:27 PM
This has been mostly a very interesting sharing of views. I am, or was, one of the "Kotov" crowd who would abitually write down the move I intended to play prior to playing it. I now make an effort not to do that (obviously) to avoid the possibility of being picked up on 8.1.

At the ANU Open I noticed that the arbiter did make a specific announcement regarding 8.1 and while a couple of my opponents consistently recorded before playing I certainly didn't complain. Given by the number of complaints I heard (only a few) I think most players were sensibly just ignoring the rule.

Regarding Geurt's anecdote on covering the scoresheet. I seem to remember him relating the case of GM Miles, who was of the habit of covering his pre-recorded next move with his wristwatch. He would remove the offending timepiece whenever required by the presence of an arbiter.

Macavity's point about the use of recording the move to gauge an opponent's response is a fair one and perhaps a reason why the rule may not be entirely silly (that and the "using notes" argument), however my tactic to avoiding this problem is simple: I make absolutely no attempt to read what my opponent has written. If calculating concrete variations on my opponent's time it is based on the moves that I think are strongest (or most likely) not on something they have scrawled on their scoresheet.

Finally, getting back to the matter at hand. Garvin, I think you were heavyhanded. Lose of game on a scoresheet offense should be a very last resort. If you felt that strongly about it, escalating time penalties (maybe) but no more. I think this is a case where commonsense needed to be applied in greater quantity than rule citations.

And regarding scoresheet penalties, Law 8.7 states "At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game." Now I was never asked nor did I request of my opponent to sign my scoresheet. Perhaps all my games should changed to double forfeits. (Please do so for rating purposes, Bill ;) ).

Do you also enforce 8.7 Garvin? And if so, what is the penalty for third time offenders?

antichrist
27-07-2005, 02:09 PM
[QUOTE=Rincewind]......And regarding scoresheet penalties, Law 8.7 states "At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game." Now I was never asked nor did I request of my opponent to sign my scoresheet. Perhaps all my games should changed to double forfeits. (Please do so for rating purposes, Bill ;) ).

At least for your last weeks ANU OPEN results - mate

Rincewind
27-07-2005, 02:27 PM
At least for your last weeks ANU OPEN results - mate

All the specifics of my post were in the context of that event. It's the only weekender I've played in since the new 8.1 has come into force.

Garvinator
27-07-2005, 06:11 PM
Were any warnings handed out at all during the ANU open? Announcements might have been made, but they are useless if not enforced.

On the issue of my penalties, for those who have said that they were in the record before move on board camp, they have been able to adjust with difficulty- but are learning and getting better- and only transgress once or twice in a game. Once or twice is the key part. They dont do it three times :uhoh:

No one has commented on the fact that we have been running education campaigns at our club for three months or more. This is integral to the debate as the rule is not new and players have had three months to alter their habits. They have been warned over the weeks as to what the likely penalties would be and also everyone in our club has changed.

Now for the recommendation of time penalties. One time penalty is fine, but it should be remembered that the SAME rule infraction has occurred three times. How many warnings does a player want in one game? I have said before that I thought I was being generous not giving a time penalty for the second offence. I still stand by that stance.

Maybe my attitude is different on this issue, but I hazard a guess that my attitude is different to the high majority on many issues in Australian chess and this is just another example.

Things sure as hell arent working the way they are at the moment :evil:

This will most likely be my last post on this issue for a while. I will wait till I start hearing of weak as piss arbiters actually enforcing the laws they claim they are following.

ANYONE WISHING TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER FURTHER WITH ME CAN DO SO BY PM OR EMAIL.

Rincewind
27-07-2005, 06:43 PM
Were any warnings handed out at all during the ANU open? Announcements might have been made, but they are useless if not enforced.

I did not hear Charles issue a specific warning to a player. The complaints I heard were entirely between players themselves. One case I found amusing was one player warned his opponent about it and 2 moves later his opponent returned the favour. :) However, if you really want to know you will have to ask Charles directly.


No one has commented on the fact that we have been running education campaigns at our club for three months or more. This is integral to the debate as the rule is not new and players have had three months to alter their habits. They have been warned over the weeks as to what the likely penalties would be and also everyone in our club has changed.

That is all well and good but the phrase "education campaign" is not very specific and so it is difficult for anyone else to really gauge its effectiveness. I think it is good to run some education but to my mind club chess should be run in the most congenial of atmospheres. After all this is your alma mater. You should be educating your players so they don't get swindled playing at another club or a weekender somewhere. You get my drift?


Now for the recommendation of time penalties. One time penalty is fine, but it should be remembered that the SAME rule infraction has occurred three times. How many warnings does a player want in one game? I have said before that I thought I was being generous not giving a time penalty for the second offence. I still stand by that stance.

Well perhaps. Certainly your generosity ran out by the third warning. However, do you believe the player was INTENTIONALLY recording the moves before playing them?


This will most likely be my last post on this issue for a while. I will wait till I start hearing of weak as piss arbiters actually enforcing the laws they claim they are following.

ANYONE WISHING TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER FURTHER WITH ME CAN DO SO BY PM OR EMAIL.

I think the debate deserves to stay in the public forum, of course participation is voluntary.

I'm still interested in your response to my question on Law 8.7, above. (Of course, others are encouraged to respond as well). And don't worry, differences of opinion are normal.

arosar
27-07-2005, 09:48 PM
Now for the recommendation of time penalties. One time penalty is fine, but it should be remembered that the SAME rule infraction has occurred three times.

Cite me the rule that says 3 strikes and you lose.


Things sure as hell arent working the way they are at the moment :evil:

This will most likely be my last post on this issue for a while. I will wait till I start hearing of weak as piss arbiters actually enforcing the laws they claim they are following.

ANYONE WISHING TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER FURTHER WITH ME CAN DO SO BY PM OR EMAIL.

What's the matter with you mate? There you go chucking a spastic again.

Now listen to me. Let me teach you something. Like I was bloody telling you before - the last thing on your mind must be to give away points and making players feel bad. People just wanna have a good time in tournaments mate. I tell you what, if you keep carrying on the way you do, you'll never DOP anywhere else. I guarantee you this. It's like you're a friggin' regular Taliban or something. You gotta be a man of the people mate. And for the people. Know what I mean?

So now, I teach you. Because I care for you, see.

When applying these kinds of laws, you don't simply ask, did he breach the rule - yes or no. That's too simplistic. You need to ask if there was malicious intent (eg. cheat). You need to consider, not only the act, but also the player's state of mind. This is kinda important because you can't have a guilty action unless your mind is also guilty. A player's reputation amongst other players and arbiters is also important. His past record even. Did he cheat before? Is he a trouble-maker? Etc, etc. Do you understand any of this?

I make you a better arbiter mate. Trust me.

AR

antichrist
28-07-2005, 12:29 AM
Cite me the rule that says 3 strikes and you lose.



What's the matter with you mate? There you go chucking a spastic again.

Now listen to me. Let me teach you something. Like I was bloody telling you before - the last thing on your mind must be to give away points and making players feel bad. People just wanna have a good time in tournaments mate. I tell you what, if you keep carrying on the way you do, you'll never DOP anywhere else. I guarantee you this. It's like you're a friggin' regular Taliban or something. You gotta be a man of the people mate. And for the people. Know what I mean?

So now, I teach you. Because I care for you, see.

When applying these kinds of laws, you don't simply ask, did he breach the rule - yes or no. That's too simplistic. You need to ask if there was malicious intent (eg. cheat). You need to consider, not only the act, but also the player's state of mind. This is kinda important because you can't have a guilty action unless your mind is also guilty. A player's reputation amongst other players and arbiters is also important. His past record even. Did he cheat before? Is he a trouble-maker? Etc, etc. Do you understand any of this?

I make you a better arbiter mate. Trust me.

AR

AR, why don't you ask all of those questions of your mate whilst he was covering up his scoresheet with his elbow when asked by arbiter if was keeping score?

Garvinator
21-09-2005, 02:15 PM
From Geurt's latest column on chesscafe.

http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm

In other news from Dresden: The Association of Chess Professionals (ACP) agreed with the new article that players may not record the moves in advance and grandmasters Macieja, Short, and Tregubov were nominated to the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee.

Rincewind
21-09-2005, 02:36 PM
I discussed this rule with our club DOP last night. He was unaware of the new requirement (ie to NOT record the move before playing). However he is a big fan of Art 8.7.

Garvinator
21-09-2005, 02:40 PM
I discussed this rule with our club DOP last night. He was unaware of the new requirement (ie to NOT record the move before playing).
He should read the latest rules then.

However he is a big fan of Art 8.7. :P