PDA

View Full Version : witness gentlemen's game



bobby1972
24-02-2006, 09:16 AM
hey what about this beauty,2 players playing a turnament game one gets up to buy a cup of coffe from the ladies,the other makes a move puting his queen on prix then in horror puts it back turns around in panic and notices that i was the only witness the player gets up and tells me that he is copmpletly winning and that it was just a slip and could i please say nothing
i keep quiet the game continues as normal and the player our hero wins.
he he he:) :) :) now then i got many stories like this and yes i am not the only witness to the other ones,love it

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 09:18 AM
hey what about this beauty,2 players playing a turnament game one gets up to buy a cup of coffe from the ladies,the other makes a move puting his queen on prix then in horror puts it back turns around in panic and notices that i was the only witness the player gets up and tells me that he is copmpletly winning and that it was just a slip and could i please say nothing
i keep quiet the game continues as normal and the player our hero wins.
he he he:) :) :) now then i got many stories like this and yes i am not the only witness to the other ones,love it

And did you say nothing?

WhiteElephant
24-02-2006, 09:24 AM
hey what about this beauty,2 players playing a turnament game one gets up to buy a cup of coffe from the ladies,the other makes a move puting his queen on prix then in horror puts it back turns around in panic and notices that i was the only witness the player gets up and tells me that he is copmpletly winning and that it was just a slip and could i please say nothing
i keep quiet the game continues as normal and the player our hero wins.
he he he:) :) :) now then i got many stories like this and yes i am not the only witness to the other ones,love it

Hehe that's hilarious, what an ethical dilemma dor you :)

jase
24-02-2006, 09:28 AM
Hehe that's hilarious, what an ethical dilemma dor you :)

Was it a dilemma?
Seems like Bobby was excited to be complicit in a little naughty!:uhoh:

Spiny Norman
24-02-2006, 09:35 AM
hey what about this beauty
Hmmm. What is the greater evil ... to be a tattle-tale ... or to be complicit in defrauding the opponent?

WhiteElephant
24-02-2006, 09:35 AM
Was it a dilemma?
Seems like Bobby was excited to be complicit in a little naughty!:uhoh:

:)

I don't think I would have said anything either.

arosar
24-02-2006, 09:43 AM
One should never be a rat.

AR

Phil Bourke
24-02-2006, 09:51 AM
Don't ever let me be the witness :) You will find that I don't believe that enforcing rules is being a rat. My silence would equate to me committing the same offence, and I have too much pride in my honesty to do that.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 09:51 AM
One should never be a rat.

Even if it leads to the game of chess being brought into disrepute?

If Bobby was a player in the tournament I think one could argue he was in violation of Law 12.1

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 09:52 AM
Don't ever let me be the witness :) You will find that I don't believe that enforcing rules is being a rat. My silence would equate to me committing the same offence, and I have too much pride in my honesty to do that.

:clap:

jenni
24-02-2006, 09:58 AM
Don't ever let me be the witness :) You will find that I don't believe that enforcing rules is being a rat. My silence would equate to me committing the same offence, and I have too much pride in my honesty to do that.

Absolutely agree with you! It is one thing not to dob someone in for a fairly victimless crime, but in this case the person was blatantly cheating and presumably if they do it once they will do it again. How is that fair to the other person?

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 10:01 AM
pride i have found over the years is directly proportional to reach weight natural fighting ability,training, place,number of witnesses .size of opponent.also mental state of opponent,how much pride do people have when confronted by say a 300 pound steriod crazy martial arts sicko thats real pride, not telling some 100 pound paper pusher about the laws of chess who cares .

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 10:06 AM
pride i have found over the years is directly proportional to reach weight natural fighting ability,training, place,number of witnesses .size of opponent.also mental state of opponent,how much pride do people have when confronted by say a 300 pound steriod crazy martial arts sicko thats real pride, not telling some 100 pound paper pusher about the laws of chess who cares .

Ever heard of Emiliano Zapata?

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 10:12 AM
yeah i heard of him every south american has.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 10:17 AM
yeah i heard of him every south american has.

Well he basically said, better to have principles and take the occasional physical abuse.

Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas. - Emiliano Zapata

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 10:48 AM
i was not the arbiter the situation was very funny (its things like this that keep me in the game) anyway this thing about "not fair to the other player" is just crap its just a chess game.man dont get me started ,how is this for fairness A does not like B ,C is playing B,during the game A said to C hey he is going to try to mate you but there is a combo if you now play f5 then the mate does not work and yiu win brilliantly by queen sac.the funny thing was the post mortem how they went on about what a nice combo very funny,now this episode i have witness many times how many times does it really happen.the drama at chess tournaments is far more interesting than the chess.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 11:08 AM
i was not the arbiter the situation was very funny (its things like this that keep me in the game) anyway this thing about "not fair to the other player" is just crap its just a chess game.

I didn't think you were the arbiter or else the situation would have been scandalous. However, I hate to repeat myself but I think you will find Law 12.1 states

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

(emphasis added)

cheers

WhiteElephant
24-02-2006, 11:17 AM
i was not the arbiter the situation was very funny (its things like this that keep me in the game) anyway this thing about "not fair to the other player" is just crap its just a chess game.man dont get me started ,how is this for fairness A does not like B ,C is playing B,during the game A said to C hey he is going to try to mate you but there is a combo if you now play f5 then the mate does not work and yiu win brilliantly by queen sac.the funny thing was the post mortem how they went on about what a nice combo very funny,now this episode i have witness many times how many times does it really happen.the drama at chess tournaments is far more interesting than the chess.

I agree, chess is full of nutty characters which can lead to many arguments and drama but that is what makes the game fun and exciting. bobby, it must have been hard for you to keep a straight face when th other guy returned to the board!

PHAT
24-02-2006, 11:33 AM
My story: 3rd or 4th tornament I played in, my opponent went for a pee, I reached out and picked up a piece and reailzed it was death. I put it backdown. I wrestled with myself and played the move anyway.

OK that is me. Doing the wrong thing is something you have to be able to live with.

Another thing you have to live with is being a dobber. If I saw a player transgress in the maaner Bobby described, I would look the otherway. It is not my business to be a tattle-tale, and God's helper. If I was a DOP and some FW came up to me and said, "Joe bloggs touched a piece while his oppnent was not there," I and I suspect every DOP would say, "OK. I will remember it." I would do nothing. Furthermore, I would only ever be his word against the bloke.

Fair dinkum. Would any of you pragons of virtue dob in your own team mates if it was they would touched but did not move.

If it is something you would not dob your team mates, don't dob on others. It is unaustralian.

PHAT
24-02-2006, 11:40 AM
12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.


Dobbing like nausiating goody-two-shoes is highly disreputable.

Sujakobi
24-02-2006, 11:43 AM
When I was 17 my mother and father encouraged me to take up chess as a way of complimenting my studies. I was an active tennis player as well and I came straight from the court to the tournament hall carrying a tennis bag and racket. One of the other children was an Ice Hockey enthusiast and came in his uniform, he was my opponent this day.The picture that was taken is very funny I will try to scan and post it.

Sujakobi
24-02-2006, 11:54 AM
I don't see what is wrong with "dobbing" as you all call it. When my first husband was having an affair my friend told me and I was grateful. He is my EX-husband now and he has a mark on the top of his skull. No he wasn't a chess player.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 12:26 PM
Dobbing like nausiating goody-two-shoes is highly disreputable.

Perhaps but not as disreputable as cheating.

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 12:28 PM
the title for one of my old post was "you can`t polish a turd" i would like in light of some resent post in onother thread to rename it "WHERE ELSE BUT THE TOILET WOULD YOU POLISH A TURD ? ":) :) :) :)

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 12:32 PM
If it is something you would not dob your team mates, don't dob on others. It is unaustralian.

And the say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. In my experience of scoundrels it seems to be among the first. ;)

Watto
24-02-2006, 01:02 PM
My first tournament. Feeling flustered by the whole experience- clock pressing, move recording, spectators. But for once I’m in a completely winning position with various ways to mate and heavily up in material. Trembling I now move my queen to a square where it delivers mate. My 800er opponent shakes my hand and resigns. I get up and walk away, feeling happy.

A highly amused spectator (one of our flatmates at the tournament) comes up to me and tells me I’ve just delivered mate with an illegal Super Queen move… I can’t believe it at first but we play through the position and I realise to my horror he’s right. My queen’s darted along the diagonal and then skidded across a bit like a knight into the perfect square… :oops:

We decide to inform the arbiter, to be safe…. looking at the position, and bearing in mind it’s blunders galore on lower boards, he says it’s okay just left as it is.

As for the witness, it happened very fast- one second my queen had landed on the square and the next my opponent had resigned...

The witness probably also couldn’t bring himself to ruin that first moment of victory I suspect… ;)

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 01:14 PM
We decide to inform the arbiter, to be safe…. looking at the position, and bearing in mind it’s blunders galore on lower boards, he says it’s okay just left as it is.

I believe you and your spectator flatmate did nothing wrong. The arbiter also acted correctly. Note that Law 8.7 states

8.7 At the conclusion of the game both players shall sign both scoresheets, indicating the result of the game. Even if incorrect, this result shall stand, unless the arbiter decides otherwise.

As it was unintentional the worse that would have happened (if it was noticed before the scoresheets were signed) would be for the position to be returned to the point before the illegality, 2 minutes added to your opponent's clock, and then for play to continue. As you had touched your queen you would have had to have made a move with that piece if a legal one existed. The arbiter seems to have considered (probably rightly) that this was too much trouble under the circumstances.

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 01:17 PM
i have seen B c1-g5 played 2 in my life with a white pawn on e3 this was discovered only after the game,strong players on both times,what about the victorian championship some 20 or so years a go an ilegal knight move in the time scramble let to victory,the victim conplaint was not upheld

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2006, 01:45 PM
I didn't think you were the arbiter or else the situation would have been scandalous. However, I hate to repeat myself but I think you will find Law 12.1 states

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

(emphasis added)

In my view (i) 12.1 covers the players in the game in question (ii) the disrepute rule has a "tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it" aspect to it - unless the possibility of disrepute is apparent at the time,the rule is not violated. So I certainly don't think bobby's first example is a 12.1 breach. In the second example, player A is in very severe breach of 13.7a and should be expelled from the tournament even without considering 12.1.

With regards the onus or otherwise on a player to dob, there is again 13.7a Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. I don't think this precludes a player in another game from dobbing in someone who has broken the rules, but I would understand if a player in another game was hesitant to act and would certainly not penalise them if I found they had failed to report a violation.

The player's behaviour in asking bobby to say nothing, as well as in the original breach, was poor. Had the arbiter investigated I suspect the player would have fibbed about it. As an arbiter I think I would have filed it for future reference, and kept a more watchful eye on that player. If you stop the game the player suffers if he is honest about it but gets away with it if he lies. As a player I would have reported this incident discreetly to the arbiter, but just in a "just so you know for future reference ..." kind of way.

"unaustralian" (the term used by Matt) is a Howardism and can't possibly have much traction on a BB devoted to a sport widely considered unaustralian because it involves actual use of the brain.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 02:05 PM
In my view (i) 12.1 covers the players in the game in question (ii) the disrepute rule has a "tree falls in the forest and no-one hears it" aspect to it - unless the possibility of disrepute is apparent at the time,the rule is not violated. So I certainly don't think bobby's first example is a 12.1 breach. In the second example, player A is in very severe breach of 13.7a and should be expelled from the tournament even without considering 12.1.

I think the wording of 12.1 makes it clear it is wider than the game which the player is paticipating in. If we were to use Frosty's capitisation convention I believe it is talking about the Game of Chess, not the game of chess. All players take upon themselves an obligation under 12.1 to conduct themselves according to higher standards than that expected of spectators.

As for falling trees in the forest, I submit this very thread as evidence of Bobby's propensity to call "timber!" and therefore the possibility of disrepute should have been readily apparent. :D

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2006, 02:17 PM
I think the wording of 12.1 makes it clear it is wider than the game which the player is paticipating in.

I think this is not completely clear and could be read either way, although thinking about it more I see more merit in your position (eg one would want to use 12.1 to punish a player who deliberately misled the arbiter about goings on in another game.)


As for falling trees in the forest, I submit this very thread as evidence of Bobby's propensity to call "timber!" and therefore the possibility of disrepute should have been readily apparent. :D

I find this whole topic of when the disrepute rule applies amusing. For instance suppose both players are up to no good but neither minds. Then a report of the incident might result in the action "bringing the game into disrepute" but if nothing becomes known there is no disrepute. I think 12.1 should be more broadly worded to cover potential (even hypothetical) disrepute and not just actual disrepute. No DOP could have known bobby would write about this incident on a BB at the time.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 02:23 PM
I find this whole topic of when the disrepute rule applies amusing. For instance suppose both players are up to no good but neither minds. Then a report of the incident might result in the action "bringing the game into disrepute" but if nothing becomes known there is no disrepute. I think 12.1 should be more broadly worded to cover potential (even hypothetical) disrepute and not just actual disrepute. No DOP could have known bobby would write about this incident on a BB at the time.

If both players are acting disreputably the game can be decided as lost to both players.

In my post I was arguing that in the incident from post #1, the disrepute should have been apparent to Bobby. Not to any DOP since in this case the DOP was unware of either breach.

PHAT
24-02-2006, 02:29 PM
Perhaps but not as disreputable as cheating.
Agreed. But we are not talking about being a cheat yourself. Rather, after having seen someone do something naughty, should you dob.

Also, let us keep this in perspective. The person was not sprung in the dunny with a laptop.

PHAT
24-02-2006, 02:41 PM
As a player I would have reported this incident discreetly to the arbiter, but just in a "just so you know for future reference ..." kind of way.

That IS dobbing. :rolleyes:


..."unaustralian" (the term used by Matt) is a Howardism and can't possibly have much traction ...

Don't try to sully the term "unaustralian," by tieing it to Howard. Like it or not, some things are in deed unaustralian. Dobbing is one of them. You are unaustralian.

WhiteElephant
24-02-2006, 02:43 PM
I wonder whether the player who took the move back is reading this...

His opponent may of course also be reading this, unaware that it happened in his game....

bobby1972
24-02-2006, 02:47 PM
its coming along nicely,moving on what about those last round results you know the ones the ones every one rises an eye brow but no one ever ever brings up.

Ian Rout
24-02-2006, 02:59 PM
Also, let us keep this in perspective. The person was not sprung in the dunny with a laptop.
So would it be "dobbing" if you reported such a person, or is it OK in that case?

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 03:02 PM
So would it be "dobbing" if you reported such a person, or is it OK in that case?

I was wondering that too. I assume Matt has an internal hierarchy of chess naughtiness and a threshold beyond which he will dob a transgression. Touch move, below the threshold, using notes and materials, above the threshold.

Perhaps Matt could illuminate further, and provide a objective arguments for the ordering within the hierarchy and the setting of the threshold.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2006, 03:07 PM
That IS dobbing. :rolleyes:

And is entirely appropriate in this case. It's very useful to DOPs to build up a feeling for which players may be suss and are worth keeping an eye on in case they get up to mischief. Many incidents can be averted in this way.

However there is a big difference between a quiet tip-off and pestering the DOP to chuck X out of the tournament.


Don't try to sully the term "unaustralian," by tieing it to Howard. Like it or not, some things are in deed unaustralian. Dobbing is one of them. You are unaustralian.

I'll criticise the term "unaustralian" as much as I like because it is a Howard-style attempt to fake a consensus on values where nothing resembling one exists. Even if the anti-dobbing ideal was as widespread as you think in Australia, we should still reject it in cases like this - patriotism is no excuse for cheating.

Lucena
24-02-2006, 03:16 PM
Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas. - Emiliano Zapata

Didn't he get that one off Peter Garrett? :whistle:

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 03:25 PM
Didn't he get that one off Peter Garrett? :whistle:

At least the Oils knew what I was talking about. ;)

PHAT
24-02-2006, 03:33 PM
So would it be "dobbing" if you reported such a person, or is it OK in that case?

:hmm:

Tricky

I think I would tell them off in no uncertain terms.

"You p....! Gimme that f...... thing! I'm gunna kill you with it."
[A light scuffle occurs. I corner him.]
"I am going to be watching you for the rest of your chess life, c...! If I see you with a laptop again I will tell everyone you know and more."
[Scum bag bolts out the door. A cubical door opens.]
"Who the f... was that, Matt?"
"Buy me a beer and we can have a talk. ;) "
"My hero :clap: "

PHAT
24-02-2006, 03:42 PM
Perhaps Matt could illuminate further, and provide a objective arguments for the ordering within the hierarchy and the setting of the threshold.

Nope, mostly these things are delt with in a practicale manner where a decission must be made then and there. Therefore I can only say that my threashold to dob would be pretty high. Unwarrented* physical intimidation or sexual aggression, flat-out theft from the group or a member of the group.

*"Unwarranted" is a subjective condition.

Rhubarb
24-02-2006, 04:25 PM
:hmm:

Tricky

I think I would tell them off in no uncertain terms.

"You p....! Gimme that f...... thing! I'm gunna kill you with it."
[A light scuffle occurs. I corner him.]
"I am going to be watching you for the rest of your chess life, c...! If I see you with a laptop again I will tell everyone you know and more."
[Scum bag bolts out the door. A cubical door opens.]
"Who the f... was that, Matt?"
"Buy me a beer and we can have a talk. ;) "
"My hero :clap: "It really is amusing watching your ever-more ridiculous justifications for not being a dobber, Matty. Suppose you were the sole witness to John Howard torturing and murdering a convent full of nuns. Do you dob him in or is that un-Australian?

Alan Shore
24-02-2006, 04:49 PM
It really is amusing watching your ever-more ridiculous justifications for not being a dobber, Matty. Suppose you were the sole witness to John Howard torturing and murdering a convent full of nuns. Do you dob him in or is that un-Australian?

I recently saw the film 'Lord of War', with the following lines:

'They say evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing. But in my experience, that's just not the case. Far more accurate is simply, "Evil prevails"'.

Rincewind
24-02-2006, 04:54 PM
'They say evil prevails when good men stand by and do nothing. But in my experience, that's just not the case. Far more accurate is simply, "Evil prevails"'.

I like it.

PHAT
24-02-2006, 05:04 PM
It really is amusing watching your ever-more ridiculous justifications for not being a dobber, Matty.
:P Since when has any justification required for not dobbing. The idea of something being un[insert a culture] is simply saying, that the behaviour/item is not what is usually associated with that culture. Poms and Krauts dob while claiming duty; Italians blackmail while well dressed; Russians extort while holding an AK47; Australians keep quiet while knowing the same will be done for them.

Suppose you were the sole witness to John Howard torturing and murdering a convent full of nuns. Do you dob him in or is that un-Australian?
Niether, I council him on the the correct use of a nun before you kill them. ;)

Alan Shore
24-02-2006, 05:13 PM
Neither, I council him on the the correct use of a nun before you kill them. ;)

I actually just finished watching Casanova.... he had some interesting ideas on the correct uses of nuns! :owned:

Libby
24-02-2006, 06:02 PM
I actually just finished watching Casanova.... he had some interesting ideas on the correct uses of nuns! :owned:

I just saw Brokeback Mountain - that Heath's a busy boy :)

BTW - I was thinking of something very vulgar to post on your "cute girls " thread but I decided my reputation wasn't up to it just now ;)

Alan Shore
24-02-2006, 06:11 PM
I just saw Brokeback Mountain - that Heath's a busy boy :)

BTW - I was thinking of something very vulgar to post on your "cute girls " thread but I decided my reputation wasn't up to it just now ;)

Mischa already started a 'cute guys' thread but it just wasn't as popular.. perhaps you can post said material there.

Bereaved
25-02-2006, 12:41 AM
Hi everyone,
Firstly, Belthasar, The quote you refer to is I think by Benjamin Franklin, google would let you know.

Secondly my own story:



Nother, A - Macavity
Australia, sometime, somewhere

1.d4 B07: Pirc Defence: Miscellaneous Systems 1...Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nbd2 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Bd3 0-0 6.0-0 c5 7.c3 b6N [7...cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.h3 (9.a3 e5 (9...Nd7 10.Nb3 e5 11.Be3 exd4 12.Nbxd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Qb6 15.Bc4 Ne5 16.Bb3 Bg4 17.Qd2 Rac8 18.Rac1 Rc5 19.Bd5 Rfc8 20.Rxc5 Rxc5 21.h3 Bd7 22.Kh2 - Meduna,E-Mirumian,V/Lazne Bohdanec 1997/CBM 57 (22)) 10.d5 Ne7 11.a4 Ne8 12.b3 f5 13.Ba3 Kh8 14.Nc4 Ng8 15.Qc2 Rf7 16.Rac1 f4 17.Qd2 g5 18.Qa5 b6 19.Nxb6 Qxb6 20.Nxg5 Rf6 21.Qxb6 axb6 22.Bb5 h6 23.Nf3 Ba6 Akopian,V-Ehlvest,J/Erevan 1996/TUR 96/- (45); 9...e5 10.Nb3 (10.d5 Nb4 11.Bb1 a5 12.Nc4 b5 13.Ne3 Bd7 14.Re1 Bh6 15.Bd2 Na6 16.a4 bxa4 17.Nc4 Bxd2 18.Nfxd2 Qc7 19.Ra3 Nc5 20.Rc3 Rfe8 21.Qf3 Kg7 22.Rec1 Bb5 23.Qe3 Nfd7 24.f4 f6 Deutsch,L-Steiner,P/AUT 1998/EXT 99/1-0 (48)) 10...a5 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Be3 a4 13.Nc5 Qa5 14.a3 Rd8 15.b4 axb3 16.Qxb3 b6 17.Rfc1 bxc5 18.Rxc5 Ba6 19.Bc4 Bxc4 20.Qxc4 Qa4 21.Rxc6 Nxe4 22.Bb6 Rdb8 23.Rc1 Qxc4 24.R1xc4 Nf6 25.Nxe5 Re8 26.Bd4 Nd5 - Karolyi,T-Yurtaev,L/Frunze 1987/TD 87\01 (26)] 8.Re1 Ba6 9.Bc2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nc6 11.a3 e5 12.d5 Ne7 13.Nf1 Ne8 14.Ng3 Bc8 15.Bb3 h6 16.Bd2 f5 17.a4 f4 18.Nf1 g5 19.Bb4 Ng6 20.N3d2 g4 21.Rc1 [21.f3 Qg5] 21...Rf7 [21...f3 22.g3=] 22.Rc2 [22.Rc3 Bh8] 22...Bf8 [22...f3 23.g3=] 23.Qe2 [23.Bc4!? is worth looking at] 23...f3 24.Qe3 [24.gxf3 Nf4 25.Qe3 gxf3 26.Nxf3 Qd7] 24...fxg2 [24...Nh4 25.Rec1 Nxg2 26.Qc3-+] 25.Kxg2 Nh4+ [25...Qh4 26.Ng3 Be7] 26.Kg1? [26.Kh1 and White is still in the game] 26...Nf3+-+ 27.Nxf3 [27.Kg2 Nxe1+ 28.Qxe1 Qh4-+] 27...Rxf3 [27...gxf3?! 28.Ng3=]


At this point I went out for a smoke; when I returned, white had doubled pawns on the a-file, being on a2 and a4. This arrangement of pieces puzzled me when I had thought that I was about to win a piece ( the Bb3 ).

I casually reached across the board, took the a2 pawn, and saying j'adoube, pushed it back on to b2. My opponent immediately blustered, but not about my cheating, but about how he had bumped the piece and did not know where it was. He had a complete up to date and accurate scoresheet, and a 1700+ rating.

The game continued as below.







28.Qd2 [28.Qe2 Rxb3 29.Bc3 b5-+] 28...Rxb3 29.Bc3 Kh7 [29...b5!? keeps an even firmer grip 30.axb5 Nf6 31.Qd3-+] 30.Qd3 Bd7 [30...b5 31.a5-+] 31.Qc4 [31.Nd2 Rxc3 32.Rxc3 Bxa4-+] 31...Rxc3 32.Rxc3 h5 [32...Rc8 33.Qb4-+] 33.Rec1 Bh6 34.R1c2 Bf4 [34...Rc8 35.Qa6 Rxc3 36.Rxc3-+] 35.Qa6 Kg6 36.b3 b5 37.Qb7 [37.axb5 Qb6 38.Ra2 Qxa6 39.bxa6 Nf6-+] 37...Rb8 [37...bxa4!? makes it even easier for Black 38.bxa4 Bxa4 39.Rc8 Rxc8 40.Rxc8-+] 38.Qxa7 bxa4 39.bxa4 Rb1 [39...Ra8 40.Qb7-+] 40.Kg2 [40.f3 Qg5 41.fxg4 Bxg4-+ (41...Qxg4+?? 42.Rg2 Nf6 43.Rc7+-) ] 40...Ra1 41.Qb7 Bxa4 42.Rc8 [42.Rb2 Re1 43.Rb1 Rxe4 44.Ng3 Bxg3 45.hxg3-+] 42...Qh4 43.R2c3 Ra2 [43...Rxf1!? and Black can already relax 44.Kxf1 Qxh2 45.Rb3-+] 44.Rg3 Bxg3 45.hxg3 Qh3+ 46.Kg1 Ra1 47.Qa6 Bd1 48.Qb5 The mate threat is Qxe8 [48.Qxa1 Bf3 49.Ne3 Qh1#] 48...Nf6 49.Rg8+ [49.Rf8 Bc2 50.Qe2 Bxe4 51.f3 Bxf3 52.Qc2+ Kg7 53.Qc7+ Kxf8 54.Qxd6+ Kg7 55.Qe7+ Kg6 56.Qxf6+ Kxf6 57.Kf2 Qxf1+ 58.Ke3 Qe2#] 49...Nxg8 50.Qe8+ Kg7 51.Qd7+ Kh8 52.Qxd6 [52.Qg7+ doesn't improve anything 52...Kxg7 53.f4 Bc2 54.Kf2 Qxf1+ 55.Ke3 Qe1#] 52...Qxf1+!? [52...Qxf1+ 53.Kh2 (53.Kxf1 Bf3#) 53...Qxf2+ 54.Kh1 Bf3#] 0-1


I would guess that if I hadn't been clearly winning, I would have got the Arbiter and had the game declared won for me. If the game was not done so, I may have just resigned to avoid playing with such a cheating prat,

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PS is the Pgn loader ever going to reappear?

Phil Bourke
25-02-2006, 09:01 AM
Sounds like a story I have read of a GM playing in a simul. Comes back to a board and notices that the opponent has snuck a knight back onto the board, thinks about pointing this out, but then notices that he is still going to win so says nothing. Until the end of the game, when he picks up the offending knight and loudly proclaims to the player, "If you are going to cheat, next time put it somewhere where it helps you." :) The cheating player was doubly embarrassed by his cheating, and the fact that it was pointless cheating as he gained nothing from it.
BTW, a little thought about this dobbing issue, didn't this concept arise from crims ratting on fellow crims to save their hide, and the criminal society then came up with the "You don't dob on your mates" mantra. Thus, by not 'dobbing', you are saying that you are a criminal too. Sorry, but if you see something illegal happening, no matter how small, you are better off nipping it in the bud and telling the offender that they have done the wrong thing, and report it a relevant authority if there is one. This is the safest way, as then no-one has anything to hold over you later on. As your agreement to the act by remaining silent, can be used by these sort of people to coerce you turning a blind eye to bigger crimes.
Of course, the old tattle tale is a whole different thing, that is usually applied to children who go racing to Mum and/or Dad with all the stories about what Johnny did wrong, when there isn't any wrong doing, just them seeking to gain the upper hand over their playmates.
But call it what you may, I stand by my convictions, if it is an act that is against the rules and disadvantages one of the participants, then I speak up. Have done before, and will do so again.

Ian Rout
25-02-2006, 09:14 AM
Now we are getting to the inner workings of Matthew's morality. Reporting wrongdoing is not bad per se. If sometimes identifies a murderer or child molester, or the person who smashes Matthew's windscreen with a basball bat, it's not "dobbing".

"Dobbing" evidently relates to reporting an action which is trivial or not really wrong at all, or even an act which many would applaud, and where the victim suffers little or deserves it; for instance it is dobbing to tell Sir who sneaked into the classroom at lunchtime and drew the caricature on the whiteboard of Sir with a very large penis.

Thus Matthew sees retracting a move as being like standing a couple of steps offside behind the ref's back, or going into the wrestling ring with a crowbar down your pants. Everybody does it, or could if they wanted to, it's part of the game, and the battle between the transgressor and the officials contributes to the spectacle. Matthew sees the player retracting the move not as a reprehensible cheat but as a merry japester, or a heroic Robin Hood figure standing with the poor chess players against the evil Arbiter of Nottingham.

The problem with Matthew's analysis is not his definition of dobbing but his belief that taking back moves is unimportant. It is widely recognised that this is a serious offence. Players who have been guilty of it have it written in bold print on their CVs for years afterwards. It is in the class of punching below the belt or knowingly claiming a catch that bounced.

Ian Rout
25-02-2006, 09:23 AM
All the stories so far are about players retracting moves, with varying degrees of success, so here's one from the other side.

A few years ago I was playing Michael Walsh in the last round of the Doeberl Cup. I went for a wander to watch the real players and on my return he extended his hand, which confused me as I didn't recall offering a draw. He explained that he was resigning as he had picked up a piece while I was away and then realised that any move would lose a piece. So there are honest players out there too.

Rincewind
25-02-2006, 09:47 AM
A few years ago I was playing Michael Walsh in the last round of the Doeberl Cup. I went for a wander to watch the real players and on my return he extended his hand, which confused me as I didn't recall offering a draw. He explained that he was resigning as he had picked up a piece while I was away and then realised that any move would lose a piece. So there are honest players out there too.

In an email game two years ago I played a speculative novelty and was being resoundingly punished for it. I was enjoying the line as my opponent's attack was really quite nice, although I was on the losing side. Then my opponent made a horrible clerical error. I replied saying he obviously made some mistake, his queen is en prise and suggest he make another move. He replied with a draw offer which I accepted.

Watto
25-02-2006, 10:40 AM
The problem with Matthew's analysis is not his definition of dobbing but his belief that taking back moves is unimportant.


My story: 3rd or 4th tornament I played in, my opponent went for a pee, I reached out and picked up a piece and reailzed it was death. I put it backdown. I wrestled with myself and played the move anyway.

To be fair to Matt, his own story demonstrates that he believes that taking back moves is wrong- he played the move that lost.

Right or wrong, it does seem to be the dobbing that worries him...

For my part, I'd lose respect for the player who cheated. I might dob- very much dependent on circumstances.

PHAT
25-02-2006, 11:38 AM
Now we are getting to the inner workings of Matthew's morality.
A free theropy session. Yipee! ;)


[Matthew's] "Dobbing" evidently relates to reporting an action which is trivial or not really wrong at all, or even an act which many would applaud, and where the victim suffers little or deserves it; ...The problem with Matthew's analysis is not his definition of dobbing but his belief that taking back moves is unimportant. It is widely recognised that this is a serious offence.

I am in a dilemma. I as told before, personally, I could not help but move a piece that I had touched, even though nobody, saw it. That is what I felt. However, some (many?) others will not feel the same way. For them, it makes no material difference to their opponents or anyone elses experience. That is, the act of the piece being secretly touched makes zero difference to the enjoyment/torcher/experience of anyone. So, they justify to themselves that they will not touch-move on this particular occation.

Is is not an abnormal way of thinking and has some merrit. So, is it wrong/bad/serious to have secretly touched and not moved (TNM). Frankly, I do not see it as "serious", even though didn't do it myself.

Of course, an obviously seen touch, must be followed with a move. To dispute the touch, while knowing the touch to be factual is very ... :hmm: ... unfortuate, and cannot be accepted.


Currently I am playing (here) against 1144. Earlier in the game, I posted a move and then edited it on a second thought. I clearly stated that I had editted it. I felt that since the game is a friendly unrated, that this would be OK. I equate it to the no clock friendlies one has have OTB. Many times you or they say, "Nup, you lose the queen," and everyone laughs and the blunder is retracted. The idea of this more forgiving behaviour is an answer to the question, "Why snuff out the fun that was being had by both of you with unorthadox speculative attacks and defences?"

Now, back to witnessing a secret TNM. If you witness a U-turn over double white lines at 3:00am, do you dial 000 ? If you see your neighbour plant and water soak a few native ground cover plants during water restrictions, do you ring the hot line?

Dobbing to the DOP for a TNM would be deeply pathetic. I suspect that most people who say they would not actually dob, thankfully! - except for Bonham who needs to feed his selfrightous ego.

PHAT
25-02-2006, 11:56 AM
For my part, I'd lose respect for the player who cheated. I might dob - very much dependent on circumstances.

Exactly right. These bloody chess types want to codify everything. They want black and white. Unfortunately for them, there is nearly always a broad grey stripe between.

As an aside, people often associate scientists/maths professionals with championing the yes/no, ether/or mode of thinking. In deed, much of their workaday chores use exactly that. However, the best of them understand and think much more holistically and therefore in shades of grey. I have no doubt that we ordinary chess players (U2000) think mostly in black and white while great players (2500+) think mostly in shades of grey.

Ian Rout
25-02-2006, 01:44 PM
Currently I am playing (here) against 1144. Earlier in the game, I posted a move and then edited it on a second thought. I clearly stated that I had editted it. I felt that since the game is a friendly unrated, that this would be OK. I equate it to the no clock friendlies one has have OTB. Many times you or they say, "Nup, you lose the queen," and everyone laughs and the blunder is retracted. The idea of this more forgiving behaviour is an answer to the question, "Why snuff out the fun that was being had by both of you with unorthadox speculative attacks and defences?"

Now, back to witnessing a secret TNM. If you witness a U-turn over double white lines at 3:00am, do you dial 000 ? If you see your neighbour plant and water soak a few native ground cover plants during water restrictions, do you ring the hot line?
No, I wouldn't report somebody driving over the wrong coloured line if they were otherwise not creating a risk, but if they ran someone over I would. Nor would I be concerned at a few litres out of hours if it was just in lieu of some other time, as opposed to serious illegal watering. And what rules people adopt in friendlies is a matter between them.

In serious competition, however, it is fundamental to playing the game that we believe we can leave the board and the opponent will, even in the absence of the arbiter, observe the rules; and failing this that other players will protect our interests, or the mere expectation of this happening will dissuade the opponent from cheating. In the same way we expect that our neighbours will report a break-in at our home when it is unattended - if burglars could be confident of this not happening the burglary rate would soar.

It is recognised both in the rules and by convention that touching a piece is the borderline at which you have to move it, and releasing it the point where you have committed to it. It is also widely agreed that breaching this is a serious transgression. The error in your argument is that you still refuse to recognise this, and continue to equate it with minor traffic infringements and mutually agreed rule relaxations in friendlies.

Rincewind
25-02-2006, 01:52 PM
Well said, Ian. You are fighting the good fight. Matt and others may consider touch move a minor infringement a transgression of which he might turn a blind eye. However, that is a purely a subjective position.

Regarding your comments on neighbours, I guess this is analogous to my interpretation of 12.1. Players should report rule breaches to which they are a witness, to not is to risk disrepute to the game. To not report a breach and then write about in a public forum is to guarantee disrepute.

qpawn
25-02-2006, 06:20 PM
Matt is leading by half a point in the last round. The unethical taken back move is to Matt's advantage. Would he dob to avoid bei ng accused of conspiring to win the tournament [ I will watch out while you take back that move and win me the vent for x dollars]. Of course Matt would.

PHAT
25-02-2006, 09:16 PM
In serious competition, however, it is fundamental to playing the game that we believe we can leave the board and the opponent will, even in the absence of the arbiter, observe the rules;

You make a strong point here. It would be stronger/weaker if you were to put TNM in a hierachy of seriousness for a range of chess offenses. I suspect that you will rate nearly every transgression as being somewhere between serious and a capital offense.


and failing this that other players will protect our interests, or the mere expectation of this happening will dissuade the opponent from cheating.

And yet another strong point :eek: In deed the prospect of being caught out does tend to keep prevaricating cheaters on the straight and narrow. However, it isnot the prosect of the DOP being involved that might be scary, it is a "you're sprung" embarassment that is most aversive. Therefore, the need to dob is not there.


It is also widely agreed that breaching [touch-move] is a serious transgression.

Realy?? It is serious if caught, and rirrelavent if not. :owned:


The error in your argument is that you still refuse to recognise this, and continue to equate it with minor traffic infringements ...

'Tisn't an error of argument to differ in one's opinion. And no, I think a traffic infingement is worse than TNM. Chess pieces cannot cause paraplegia. In my opinion, a person who does not dob for 100kph through a 40kph zone, yet would dob for a TNM, has absurd priorites.


...and mutually agreed rule relaxations in friendlies.

Sorry if I gave that impression, Ian. I do not actually equate them.



Let me put this question: If you saw someone observe and ignore a TNM offense, would you dob that person for not dobbing, as well as the TNMer? Remember that that non-dobber is an accessory to a "serious" offense.

PHAT
25-02-2006, 09:30 PM
Matt is leading by half a point in the last round. The unethical taken back move is to Matt's advantage. Would he dob to avoid bei ng accused of conspiring to win the tournament [ I will watch out while you take back that move and win me the vent for x dollars]. Of course Matt would.

:naughty: You do not know me.

If I understand your senario: I would be the only witness. No, I would not dob. I would however, tell him that I saw it and was not impressed and would prefer not to win 1st $x on a dodgy game. I might even give ~half the money to the TNMer and tell him to, "Give this to 2nd place and tell him why." :silenced:

Bereaved
26-02-2006, 02:40 AM
Hi everyone,

Given how this discussion is progressing, I can't resist putting up one of my favourite passages from CJS Purdy, from Guide to Good Chess:


We have now disposed of all the essential rules of chess except "touch and move."

Once you touch a piece, move it. If you touch more than one, you are compelled to move the first one in any case. The same applies to touching an opponent's piece; you must take it, if it can be taken. Further, once you have moved, and your hand has quitted the piece, your move is complete. If it is a legal move, it cannot be retracted. Never allow an opponent to retract a move. That is not chess. If the move made is illegal - e.g., if it would leave the mover in check - it must of course be retracted, but a legal move must be made with the same piece, if possible. If it is not possible, there is no penalty.

In serious chess, nobody ever dreams of asking for a move back, and sucha request would be met with the same frozen horror with which the workhouse authorities received Oliver Twist's request for more. In certain circles, such things are done, but it is infinitely worse than eating peas off a knife, or blowing on your soup. Some people retract moves in "friendly" play without even asking; they are no better than professional thugs. Expunge their names from your visiting list.

Purdy doesn't beat around the bush, does he?

I tend to agree about the taking back of moves as the reason that the hand touches a piece is that the brain tells it to, hence the hands are for moving and the brain is for deciding; let your brain tell your hand what to do, not the other way around.

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2006, 03:16 AM
:P Since when has any justification required for not dobbing. The idea of something being un[insert a culture] is simply saying, that the behaviour/item is not what is usually associated with that culture.

Which means you should stop dishing out such claims as criticisms unless you can demonstrate merit in them; ie prove that being "unaustralian" in this context is wrong.

Please don't tempt me to quote Nietzsche at you. That would be really boring for everyone.

As is refuting this gibberish:


I suspect that most people who say they would not actually dob, thankfully! - except for Bonham who needs to feed his selfrightous ego.

My ego has nix to do with it - if it could only be done anonymously and with my memory of the "dobbing" being erased immediately after, I would still do it. DOPs benefit from being tipped off about potential troublemakers even if no action is taken. Why anyone other than a potential troublemaker would want to disagree with that is beyond me - unless they were a troll. :whistle:

Libby
26-02-2006, 06:21 AM
I dob. Sorry Matt - unAustralian enough and I should probably lose my citizenship I suppose ;)

It's cheating. When you break the rules, you are cheating. I think that's unAustralian (although I loathe that expression - find a better one).

I dob because I think it's rare that it's a one-off infraction and I think it's most likely to be repeated. What I don't expect necessarily, is that the arbiter or DOP will "take my word on it" - rather I expect them to keep an eye of the offender and note (even mentally) for future reference.

I am wary of dobbing against my daughter's direct opponent (I try to avoid that perception of vested interest in the outcome) but I do think cheats should experience a level of censure for their actions.

We (as in ACTJCL) enforce touch-move very strictly, requiring particularly outstanding negotiation skills at times as an arbiter (reinforcing for me that knowing the rules of chess is far from the most significant skill required). What I don't like - given the criticism many adults level at juniors over behaviour in tournaments - is that adults think it is OK if you can get away with it. Doesn't really help us, at a junior level, trying to develop players who understand the rules & etiquette of the game, if they see them flouted in the adult environment.

And some very young (& older) children can come home quite upset over a game lost in a major weekender when an opponent just out-and-out cheats, not once, but several times in the game, and a parent is so concerned about their own perceived vested interest that they have let it happen. You don't do that more than once.

bobby1972
26-02-2006, 07:33 AM
what about the player at doeberl cup turns up 45 mins late picks up the clock resets it back 45 mins for his side gives the score sheet to his opponent to write his name down and the game proceeds as if nothing happened his opponet in shock said nothing i was on the board next to them very funny.

Rincewind
26-02-2006, 09:23 AM
It's cheating. When you break the rules, you are cheating. I think that's unAustralian (although I loathe that expression - find a better one).

Unethical, immoral, unconscionable, unscrupulous, or dare I say it? Reprehensible. :D Thesaurus owners may come up with heaps more.


I dob because I think it's rare that it's a one-off infraction and I think it's most likely to be repeated. What I don't expect necessarily, is that the arbiter or DOP will "take my word on it" - rather I expect them to keep an eye of the offender and note (even mentally) for future reference.

This is a good point. Which is why Bobby even with no other witnesses should have reported the cheating to the dop. No action could have been taken if the player denied Bobby's accusation but it still would have served a purpose.


I am wary of dobbing against my daughter's direct opponent (I try to avoid that perception of vested interest in the outcome) but I do think cheats should experience a level of censure for their actions.

I think any cheating should be reported. Obviously your vested interest in your child will be taken into account by the dop but all cheating should be reported. However, if a parent is not known to the dop then it would be wise to start with "Hi, I'm so-and-so's parent..." Just so you have clearly declared your vested interest up front.


We (as in ACTJCL) enforce touch-move very strictly, requiring particularly outstanding negotiation skills at times as an arbiter (reinforcing for me that knowing the rules of chess is far from the most significant skill required). What I don't like - given the criticism many adults level at juniors over behaviour in tournaments - is that adults think it is OK if you can get away with it. Doesn't really help us, at a junior level, trying to develop players who understand the rules & etiquette of the game, if they see them flouted in the adult environment.

Personally, I have never flouted them or even witnessed them flouted to the degree Bobby has. However, it does come up from time to time and I can think of two recent occasions.

A couple of months ago I play a guy from my club and was a rook up. He touched a piece put it down and then realised he was losing his queen to a knight fork, he tried to take back the move but I insisted he play it. He wasn't happy but he did. I wonder what resistence I might have had if he was a rook up instead of me and the move changed the probably result from win to loss.

In another game last month I was playing a guy in his first cmopetition game. He played a move which was not best and was obviously disappointed after playnig the move but before clocking. I offered him the opportunity to change the move, because he was inexperienced and losing I thought that may leave him with an overall more positive experience of comp chess. Perhaps that decision was wrong.


And some very young (& older) children can come home quite upset over a game lost in a major weekender when an opponent just out-and-out cheats, not once, but several times in the game, and a parent is so concerned about their own perceived vested interest that they have let it happen. You don't do that more than once.

It should not happen once. As I said report every incident and be forecoming with your vested interest. Also set expectations reasonably If you and your child are the only witnesses to the infraction then calling for a life-ban of the cheater is probably unrealistic.

eclectic
26-02-2006, 03:52 PM
i was wondering ...

if a chess tournament involves a huge amount of prize money can instances of cheating as covered by this thread also come under fraud etc offences it alteration to prizes result?

also ...

i used to think that there was some point of honour amongst australian players to make it really hard to earn titles so that they would not be devalued

however given this and the soft titles thread i'm actually beginning to wonder if i should bother to put the australian chess community on such an exalted pedestal

PHAT
26-02-2006, 04:40 PM
So far it looks like I am the only one marching in time - I have to wonder why.

I saw a movie "Best in Show." Deadset funny. A mockumentry on the dog show circuit, is showed how relatively obsessed individuals can become wih their chosen leasure activity. As a relative newcomer to chess, I was not inculcated from birth with the chess attitudes of the ages. Therefore, I think maybe I am seeing these issues with new eyes. For me the relative seriousnesses of various transgressions is out of step with many on this BB.

For example may put my personal scaled list of what capital crimes.
#1 Getting computer help. (#1 beause it is sneaky.)
2. Getting personal help. (2. because at least their is another culprit.)
3. Intimidation of an opponent by a deliberate and erronious disputing of the rules.
4. Other outright cheating - eg. lies about identity; altering the board position.
5. Not showing for a game.
6. Noisy disturbing behaviour. (Particularly arguing with the DOP.)
7. Fidgeting. Unwashed stinking.
8. DOPs not enforcing the mobile phone rule and allowing serial noise offenders to continue offending.
9. Disrespectful arrogance OTB. Snorting. Huffing.
10. Not recording moves.
11. Abuse of the equipment (slamming the clock or pieces)
12. Touching a peice when none saw it and not moving it.
(This list is no doubt incomplete.)

No doubt others would rearrange, add, and delete from this list. However, it does show the level of seriousness that TNM assumes in my schema. Am I "wrong" to feel this arrangements of priorities? Or is it merely a personal subjective heirachy?

Numbers 1 to 8 should be delt with by the observer (only if the observer can exact the "right response" from the transgressor.) If the observer cannot do this, the transgression ought to be reported. 9 to 12, don't dob, it ain't serious enough.

Libby
26-02-2006, 04:44 PM
It should not happen once. As I said report every incident and be forecoming with your vested interest. Also set expectations reasonably If you and your child are the only witnesses to the infraction then calling for a life-ban of the cheater is probably unrealistic.

Look Barry, obviously I have a personal niggle about the use of "vested" ;) but I don't really need this kind of explanation.

It's a tricky road to travel as a parent in any sports environment. There are plenty of undesirable labels you can find yourselves plastered with - pushy, whinging, etc etc.

And if the person making the infringement wants to lie about it - then it's just your word against theirs and I've found one or two DOPs are happier if the boat just doesn't get rocked.

I think it remains tricky to manage "dobbing" of players if the person infringed against is my own child. With the right DOP, I have no problem having a quiet word.

I don't think the practice is widespread but I think those who do it - do it often and tolerating it is bad for the game. It can be particularly bad for kids. Not just as a poor example to them but because they don't always have the confidence - in an adult v child adversarial position - that they will be believed. And if they lack the confidence to make a complaint, their opponent can just walk all over them.

PHAT
26-02-2006, 04:46 PM
My ego has nix to do with it - if it could only be done anonymously and with my memory of the "dobbing" being erased immediately after, I would still do it.

Pentium chip.

Garvinator
26-02-2006, 04:49 PM
So far it looks like I am the only one marching in time - I have to wonder why.
I dont think you are the only one who has your view. I would go further and say that in the general chess public, your opinion is very common.

One of the biggest things that I have noticed is that players quite often have to be taught and have drummed into them is:
to stop the clock and inform that arbiter if you notice any irregularity.

So your opinion is certainly not the exception in this matter.

It is more a case that most of the respondants in this thread do know the laws of chess and are aware of the importance of informing the arbiter.

eclectic
26-02-2006, 04:54 PM
i guess if one has to use the rest room it's best to do it while your clock is going ...

and ...

maybe there should be provision for DOPs and arbiters to be required to have a digital camera so that a position is recorded and a printout made so that such "irregularities" (lovely euphemism!!) are circumvented

Libby
26-02-2006, 04:56 PM
12. Touching a peice when none saw it and not moving it.

Getting tricky here Matt. Is there any difference here -

Touch a piece and not move it - nobody is around to see

Touch a piece and not move it - only spectators around, no opponent

Touch a piece and not move it - dispute having touched it at all when challenged by the opponent, no "external witnesses"

Touch a piece and not move it - dispute having touched it when challenged by the opponent, and witnesses remain silent

Touch a piece and not move it - tell 10-year old opponent they are mistaken and they never touched it at all (after all, they would then drop a Queen)

Isn't it all the same Matt? Isn't touch-move just a rule of chess? If you don't enforce it you might just as well choose any other random rule and ignore that too. What about those Queens and Bishops that just slip off their starting diagonal to make a capture? Or perhaps it's OK to add a little time to the clock if your opponent isn't around to see?

It's not a hanging offence but it is against the rules. If you let them get away with the king hit behind play once in a while, don't you think they'll try it on next time the opportunity presents itself?

eclectic
26-02-2006, 05:11 PM
spectators are most welcome provided they are conversant with the laws of chess and promise to report instances of cheating ...

Bill Gletsos
26-02-2006, 05:15 PM
Dobbing to the DOP for a TNM would be deeply pathetic.:So what about this scenario:

1. Joe Blogs is playing Fred Nerks. Whilst Nerks goes to the loo, Blogs touches a piece but does not move it and moves another piece. You (Matt) witness the indiscretion.
a) do you do absolutly nothing
b) do you let Blogs know you saw it, but Blogs just ignores you
c) do you let Blogs know you saw it, but Blogs tells you to mind your own f'ing business

So in all 3 situations do you a) not mention it to Nerks and/or b) not report it to the DOP.

PHAT
26-02-2006, 06:10 PM
Getting tricky here Matt.
Such things are always tricky :)

Is there any difference here -
1. nobody is around to see
2. only spectators around, no opponent
3. dispute having touched it at all when challenged by the opponent, no "external witnesses"
4. dispute having touched it when challenged by the opponent, and witnesses remain silent
5. tell 10-year old opponent they are mistaken and they never touched it at all (after all, they would then drop a Queen)

Isn't it all the same Matt?
No, they are not the same. Just as: genecide; murder; manslaughter; unlawful killing; euthenasia; abortion et cetera are all different but share an action.
1. For all practical purposes, it didn't happen, so is irrelevent to this discussion.
2. Naughty, but don't dob
3. Rule breaking was obviuously detected and if the oppenent feels strongly enough will call the DOP.
4. When called to bear witness by the opponent, you have to say what you saw else you must lie.
5. Intimidation. Insist the DOP take strong action.


Isn't touch-move just a rule of chess? If you don't enforce it you might just as well choose any other random rule and ignore that too.
True, just don't expect me to violate my own standards to help by dobbing for what I concider a chess faux pas.

What about those Queens and Bishops that just slip off their starting diagonal to make a capture?
As a spectator you cannot say anything about such "mistakes."

Or perhaps it's OK to add a little time to the clock if your opponent isn't around to see?No that is 100% cheating. Tell the opponent to check the times for max elapsed time. Then it is up to them to call the DOP.



It's not a hanging offence but it is against the rules.
So is making a noisy scene during a dispute, but DOPs (almost) never seem to red card the player.

If you let them get away with the king hit behind play once in a while, don't you think they'll try it on next time the opportunity presents itself?Yes. But don't try to correct them by dobbing.

PHAT
26-02-2006, 06:13 PM
spectators are most welcome provided they are conversant with the laws of chess and promise to report instances of cheating ... :lol: :clap:

Rincewind
26-02-2006, 06:21 PM
Look Barry, obviously I have a personal niggle about the use of "vested" ;) but I don't really need this kind of explanation.

I hadn't noticed. ;)

But really a vested interest is not a problem as long as it is declared where it might not be apparent. In short, I don't understand why it should niggle, however perfectly happy to accept that it does.

PHAT
26-02-2006, 06:22 PM
So what about this scenario:

1. Joe Blogs is playing Fred Nerks. Whilst Nerks goes to the loo, Blogs touches a piece but does not move it and moves another piece. You (Matt) witness the indiscretion.
a) do you do absolutly nothing
b) do you let Blogs know you saw it, but Blogs just ignores you
c) do you let Blogs know you saw it, but Blogs tells you to mind your own f'ing business

So in all 3 situations do you a) not mention it to Nerks and/or b) not report it to the DOP.


So what about this scenario:

1. Joe Blogs is Playing Fred Nerks for NSWCA Presidency, whilst Fred Nerks keeps mum about his own play. Blogs needs to join the NSWCA but does not move on it before the dot of X o,clock. You are Fred Nerks committing the indiscretion.
a) do you do absolutly nothing honerable.
b) do you let Blogs know you are a dog, but Blogs deserves it.
c) do you let Blogs know you are a dog, but Blogs tells you to stick your own f'ing business

So in all 3 situations you a) did not mention it earlier to Blogs and/or b) you are a dog and don't care.

Get stuffed and stay out of ANY thread on ethics. V..

Bill Gletsos
26-02-2006, 06:46 PM
So what about this scenario:

1. Joe Blogs is Playing Fred Nerks for NSWCA Presidency, whilst Fred Nerks keeps mum about his own play. Blogs needs to join the NSWCA but does not move on it before the dot of X o,clock. You are Fred Nerks committing the indiscretion.
a) do you do absolutly nothing honerable.
b) do you let Blogs know you are a dog, but Blogs deserves it.
c) do you let Blogs know you are a dog, but Blogs tells you to stick your own f'ing business

So in all 3 situations you a) did not mention it earlier to Blogs and/or b) you are a dog and don't care.Blogs's good mate and Vice Presidential Candidate knew that Blogs needed to join the NSWCA but apparently forgot to ensure Blogs was capable of carrying out such a simple task.

Get stuffed and stay out of ANY thread on ethics. V..Your ethics are highly subjective and questionable.
Players should pray that if their opponent does commits a touch move violation whilst they are away from the board that you are not the only witness.

One wonders what action you would take if you were the arbiter and someone reported a touch move violation to you.

PHAT
26-02-2006, 07:18 PM
One wonders what action you would take if you were the arbiter and someone reported a touch move violation to you.

Wonder no longer.

I would ask the alledged, "Did you touch it?" If he says no, I would say, "OK make sure you don't do anything again that looks anything like you might have touched a piece that you aren't going to move."

This is a case of one player's word against another. The investigation, as little as it is, acts as a warning that they will be watched very closely.

Bill Gletsos
26-02-2006, 07:33 PM
Wonder no longer.

I would ask the alledged, "Did you touch it?" If he says no, I would say, "OK make sure you don't do anything again that looks anything like you might have touched a piece that you aren't going to move."

This is a case of one player's word against another. The investigation, as little as it is, acts as a warning that they will be watched very closely.However given your attitude towards dobbing would you also give the person reporting it to you a serve for being "a dobber".

PHAT
26-02-2006, 07:38 PM
However given your attitude towards dobbing would you also give the person reporting it to you a serve for being "a dobber".
Yes.

EDIT: PS. but diplomatically.