PDA

View Full Version : Who forfeits



EGOR
12-07-2006, 12:09 PM
If a player waiting for their opponent to arrive has a phone call or makes a phone and their opponent does not show up in the alloted time, who forfeits the game?
Or, do they both forfeit?

In case I'm not clear in my question I'll put it in a case study.

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man decides to call his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) to say he'll coming home in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.
Does the man making the call foreit and his opponent win without ever showing up?
Does the one who does not show up foreit?
Is it a double foreit?

Brian_Jones
12-07-2006, 12:26 PM
You lose. You should not have a mobile phone switched on in the playing area!

EGOR
12-07-2006, 12:32 PM
You lose. You should not have a mobile phone switched on in the playing area!
So does that mean the player does not even show wins the game and recieves a point by forfeit?

Basil
12-07-2006, 12:34 PM
The person who didn't show up forfeits. No question.

I'm quite sure the person was in attendance at the start time is playing. That he choses to stand on his head at the foyer for the duartion of the game is his choice. He is still playing the game. This person does not forfeit on the grounds stated.

Garvin is one of the men to speak to about this.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 12:40 PM
I'm quite sure the person was in attendance at the start time is playing. That he choses to stand on his head at the foyer for the duartion of the game is his choice. He is still playing the game. This person does not forfeit on the grounds stated.
I didn't think anyone saw me!:uhoh: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 12:43 PM
To determine the outcome we should firstly look at what the Laws of Chess actually say.

If a player phone rings in the playing area he loses the game in accordance with Article 12.2 b. It is also clear from this article that the arbiter gets to decide the score of the opponent. It is clear that if the opponent fails to arrive that the arbiter should rule he also loses on forfeit.

However although the FIDE rules state in Article 13.7 b that it is forbidden to use a mobile phone in the playing venue, the FIDE rules do not state any explicit penalty for a player who violates this rule. Therefore the penalty for doing so is at the discretion of the arbiter.

Logic would however seem to dictate that if having your phone ring is sufficient to lose the game then making a phone call should suffer the same fate.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 12:45 PM
To determine the outcome we should firstly look at what the Laws of Chess actually say.

If a player phone rings in the playing area he loses the game in accordance with Article 12.2 b. It is also clear from this article that the arbiter gets to decide the score of the opponent. It is clear that if the opponent fails to arrive that the arbiter should rule he also loses on forfeit.

However although the FIDE rules state in Article 13.7 b that it is forbidden to use a mobile phone in the playing venue, the FIDE rules do not state any explicit penalty for a player who violates this rule. Therefore the penalty for doing so is at the discretion of the arbiter.

Logic would however seem to dictate that if having your phone ring is suffiecient to lose the game then making a phone call should suffer the same fate.

So you are saying that it should be a double forfeit?

Basil
12-07-2006, 12:48 PM
Logic would however seem to dictate that if having your phone ring is suffiecient to lose the game then making a phone call should suffer the same fate.

Oooooooooooh no it doesn't! Making a phone call and having one's phone ring are two separate things.
[Calling:The act of dialling and speaking, and the location of the call, versus, Receiving: the phone being switched on and a disturbing noise being made. The fact that commonality of speech may occur is not relevant as it is diluted by location].

There is certainly a provision regarding making phone calls and general acts of communication which is enforced in some tournaments. But this provision and its enforcement is entirely separate from one's phone ringing. The latter being far more widely enforced in recent times.

pull_my_finger
12-07-2006, 12:56 PM
its a double forfeit i think

EGOR
12-07-2006, 12:56 PM
Slightly changed case study

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man gets a call from his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) wanting to know when he is coming home. He answers, in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.

pull_my_finger
12-07-2006, 12:58 PM
Slightly changed case study

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man gets a call from his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) wanting to know when he is coming home. He answers, in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.
Still a double forfeit imo

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 12:59 PM
Slightly changed case study

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man gets a call from his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) wanting to know when he is coming home. He answers, in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.Lets get this straight.
Player sits at the board and starts the opponents clock.
Oppoenent is absent.
45 minutes later players phone rings.
Was the ring audible.
Did he answer the phone when it rang.
If it wasnt audible and he didnty answer when it rang did he wait another 15 minutes and then make a phone call.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:00 PM
its a double forfeit i think
My question then is, "How can someone be forfeited for failing to show for a game in the alotted time required, if their opponent is forfeited for mobile phone use and the game is over(?) before the time is reached?

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:01 PM
Lets get this straight.
Player sits at the board and starts the opponents clock.
Oppoenent is absent.
45 minutes later players phone rings.
Was the ring audible.
Did he answer the phone when it rang.
If it wasnt audible and he didnty answer when it rang did he wait another 15 minutes and then make a phone call.
The call was audible and he did answer!

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:01 PM
Slightly changed case study

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man gets a call from his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) wanting to know when he is coming home. He answers, in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.

Slightly Changed Outcome:

You're both OUTTA HERE! :)
Double plughole job. Gurgle Gurgle.

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 01:01 PM
The call was audible and he did answer!Double forfeit.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:03 PM
Double forfeit.
Again, "My question then is, "How can someone be forfeited for failing to show for a game in the alotted time required, if their opponent is forfeited for mobile phone use and the game is over(?) before the time is reached?"

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:04 PM
My question then is, "How can someone be forfeited for failing to show for a game in the alotted time required, if their opponent is forfeited for mobile phone use and the game is over(?) before the time is reached?

Because the two incidents are neither co-related, nor co-dependant.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:04 PM
Slightly Changed Outcome:

Your both OUTTA HERE! :)
Double plughole job. Gurgle Gurgle.
but one of us is not even HERE!:)

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:05 PM
Because the two incidents are neither co-related, nor co-dependant.
Is the game over when the person using the phone is forfeited?

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:06 PM
but one of us is not even HERE!:)

I hate to say it [and for God's sake don't tell him], but I channel Axiom and clarify that you're both outta here existentially. :)

Nice work on the wriggle, though:cool:

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:07 PM
Is the game over when the person using the phone is forfeited?

The game might be over, but the ability to be stripped naked and turkey slapped remains, viz; the awarding of points.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:07 PM
I hate to say it [and for God's sake don't tell him], but I channel Axiom and clarify that you're both outta here existentially. :)

Nice work on the wriggle, though:cool:
Sorry, don't believe in channeling.;)

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:14 PM
The game might be over, but the ability to be stripped naked and turkey slapped remains, viz; the awarding of points.
So you are saying that the arbiter can rule a double forfeit because the player hasn't showed reguardless of the clock being stopped?
What if the player shows up at around the hour mark and claims he is there in the time, but the game clock has been stopped, so it cannot be proven either way?

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:14 PM
The real fun starts when the person who forfeits on time, enters the hall after the game is lost, only to observe and hear the victor's phone ring!

I think as the victor is now a spectator, the loss for the victor does not necessarilly apply - better the see the arbiter. But I fancy the chances of hanging on to the point and either being evicted from the hall and or the tournament, but the point stands!!

Garvinator
12-07-2006, 01:19 PM
I give a slightly different answer, but results are the same.

Player A, the one who used the phone in the playing hall, in both circumstances is forfeited. This is clear cut.

Player B, the one who hasnt shown, the arbiter would decide the score of the game to be zero points. The reason being is that the player hasnt shown for the round at all. It would be marked as a forfeit because they havent played and so shouldnt gain any rating points from a no show.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2006, 01:19 PM
Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man decides to call his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) to say he'll coming home in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.

The player has breached Article 12.2b and has also disturbed other players. I would consider any penalty from warning to loss of game reasonable. I would personally issue a very severe warning advising that any repeat would lead to expulsion from the tournament. (If a player playing a game in progress made a phone call I would forfeit them because of the possibility of advice, but advice is not an issue if the game hasn't started.)


Slightly changed case study

Having started his clock and waited 45 minutes, a man gets a call from his wife (on his mobile while sitting at the board) wanting to know when he is coming home. He answers, in 15 minutes when his opponent foreits on time.

Player who answered the phone forfeits.

If forfeiting the player in the first case, and when forfeiting them in the second case, the DOP can wait until the hour is up before deciding the score of the opponent.

If the opponent makes it to the venue in time they are entitled to a win on forfeit. If they don't it is a double forfeit.

Note that 12.2b says the arbiter shall decide the opponent's score - but it doesn't say they have to do so immediately.

So in the second case I would declare the game lost for the player whose phone rang but withhold the opponent's score while I waited to see if they showed.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:24 PM
The player has breached Article 12.2b and has also disturbed other players. I would consider any penalty from warning to loss of game reasonable. I would personally issue a very severe warning advising that any repeat would lead to expulsion from the tournament. (If a player playing a game in progress made a phone call I would forfeit them because of the possibility of advice, but advice is not an issue if the game hasn't started.)



Player who answered the phone forfeits.

If forfeiting the player in the first case, and when forfeiting them in the second case, the DOP can wait until the hour is up before deciding the score of the opponent.

If the opponent makes it to the venue in time they are entitled to a win on forfeit. If they don't it is a double forfeit.

Note that 12.2b says the arbiter shall decide the opponent's score - but it doesn't say they have to do so immediately.

So in the second case I would declare the game lost for the player whose phone rang but withhold the opponent's score while I waited to see if they showed.

This all makes sense to me.
there is just the little question of the player showing up around the time but the game clock being stopped so there is no clear evidance that the player made it on time. Should the player be given the benifit of the doubt?

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:26 PM
Post #1 clearly states that the player made the call while sitting at the board.

Howard has not digested this very simple statement and formed the opinion that the call was made away from the playing area.

Howard is a goose.
Howard is as unobservant as fg7.
Howard is a clown.
Howard is a laughing stock.
Howard has lost all credibility.
Howard is a moron.
Howard is a tool.
Howard is a fool.
Howard is a waste of space.
Howard has wasted everyone's time.
Howard .................................
..........................................
............................................








kerplunk.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2006, 01:27 PM
This all makes sense to me.
there is just the little question of the player showing up around the time but the game clock being stopped so there is no clear evidance that the player made it on time. Should the player be given the benifit of the doubt?

The game clock is irrelevant and can be stopped. Whether the player forfeits or not is determined by whether an hour has elapsed since the scheduled start of the session (Art 6.7).

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:33 PM
The game clock is irrelevant and can be stopped. Whether the player forfeits or not is determined by whether an hour has elapsed since the scheduled start of the session (Art 6.7).
So you would forfeit the player if he showed one minute after the scheduled start of play, even though their opponent has already lost on the mobile phone forfeit?

PS. This has brought another (probably silly) question to mind.
I have been at tournaments where the first round has started more than an hour after the scheduled start of play, does that mean everyone in the first round should be forfeited on time?:hmm: :whistle:

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:35 PM
Howard is a goose.
Howard is as unobservant as fg7.
Howard is a clown.
Howard is a laughing stock.
Howard has lost all credibility.
Howard is a moron.
Howard is a tool.
Howard is a fool.
Howard is a waste of space.
Howard has wasted everyone's time.
Howard .................................
..........................................
............................................








kerplunk.
All of the above!:hmm:

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:36 PM
Indeed. This wasn't multiple choice. It was the full flagellation on all counts.:uhoh:

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:37 PM
Indeed. This wasn't multiple choice. It was the full flagellation on all counts.:uhoh:
I understand.

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2006, 01:38 PM
So you would forfeit the player if he showed one minute after the scheduled start of play, even though their opponent has already lost on the mobile phone forfeit?

I assume you mean one minute after one hour after the scheduled start of play.

If so, yes, I would forfeit them, unless they had a very valid excuse. Neither player deserves to gain points they would otherwise have had no chance of just because the opponent forfeited so 0-0 is the correct result.


I have been at tournaments where the first round has started more than an hour after the scheduled start of play, does that mean everyone in the first round should be forfeited on time?:hmm: :whistle:

No, because there is a rider "or the arbiter decides otherwise".

Art 6.7 says:

"Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise."

EGOR
12-07-2006, 01:41 PM
No, because there is a rider "or the arbiter decides otherwise".

Art 6.7 says:

"Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise."
Ok:)

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:46 PM
So with all that activity bundled, packed and ready for the post, may we turn our attention to "how much of a goose did you make of yourself on the night"?

- Not at all - startled by the headlights
- Perhaps, just a little - but I had a sneaky feeling about the call
- Quite a lot - because I'm nearly as goosish as Duggan
- OTT Bananas - 'cause I hang around fg7. I was an angry and indignant young man who thought he knew better

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 01:48 PM
So you are saying that the arbiter can rule a double forfeit because the player hasn't showed reguardless of the clock being stopped?
What if the player shows up at around the hour mark and claims he is there in the time, but the game clock has been stopped, so it cannot be proven either way?Game clock is irrelevant. He must be there within 1 hr of the scheduled start time.

Basil
12-07-2006, 01:56 PM
C'mon EGOR. Give it up to post #37 :)

Let it out. Fess it up. C'mon lad ... we're all friends here.

road runner
12-07-2006, 02:15 PM
When a player is forfeited for using the phone, is the game rated?

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 02:35 PM
When a player is forfeited for using the phone, is the game rated?Technically the player isnt losing the game on forfeit. The game is declared lost for him by the arbiter. It is similar to the arbiter declaring the game lost for a player under Articvle 13.4 d for any other reason.

As such the game is rated.

road runner
12-07-2006, 02:50 PM
Technically the player isnt losing the game on forfeit. The game is declared lost for him by the arbiter. It is similar to the arbiter declaring the game lost for a player under Articvle 13.4 d for any other reason.

As such the game is rated.
Well that is a relief. Otherwise we could have some players turning on their phones when they reach unfavourable positions. ;)

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 02:52 PM
Well that is a relief. Otherwise we could have some players turning on their phones when they reach unfavourable positions. ;)I was being diplomatic in not mentioning that possibility. ;)

Alan Shore
12-07-2006, 04:13 PM
Technically the player isnt losing the game on forfeit. The game is declared lost for him by the arbiter. It is similar to the arbiter declaring the game lost for a player under Articvle 13.4 d for any other reason.

As such the game is rated.

Hmm, anyone got the mobile numbers of a few GM's? ;)

Garvinator
12-07-2006, 04:13 PM
Hmm, anyone got the mobile numbers of a few GM's? ;)
you have AO's number ;)

road runner
12-07-2006, 04:19 PM
you have AO's number ;)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Garrett
12-07-2006, 07:34 PM
Yes I agree with the people who say it is a double forfeit. The second player should not get a point for not turning up. Otherwise it could conceivably happen seven times in a row and they could win the tournament even if they had a car crash and died on the way to the tournament before the first round.

EGOR
12-07-2006, 08:24 PM
Technically the player isnt losing the game on forfeit. The game is declared lost for him by the arbiter. It is similar to the arbiter declaring the game lost for a player under Articvle 13.4 d for any other reason.

As such the game is rated.
But with our case of one player getting 0 for phone use and the other 0 for not showing up, is it rated as a loss for the phone user and not for the no show?

EGOR
12-07-2006, 08:26 PM
So with all that activity bundled, packed and ready for the post, may we turn our attention to "how much of a goose did you make of yourself on the night"?

- Not at all - startled by the headlights
- Perhaps, just a little - but I had a sneaky feeling about the call
- Quite a lot - because I'm nearly as goosish as Duggan
- OTT Bananas - 'cause I hang around fg7. I was an angry and indignant young man who thought he knew better
None of the above.:)

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2006, 11:09 PM
But with our case of one player getting 0 for phone use and the other 0 for not showing up, is it rated as a loss for the phone user and not for the no show?No, thats why I previously specifically used the words double forfeit.

EZBeet
13-07-2006, 10:53 AM
Surely it is at the arbiters discretion.

Certainly making a call is completely different to receiving one however FIDE does state it is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue.

It does however only say that if a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game...

It does not say the person who brings a phone into the venue loses the game.

Bill Gletsos
13-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Surely it is at the arbiters discretion.

Certainly making a call is completely different to receiving one however FIDE does state it is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue.

It does however only say that if a player`s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game...

It does not say the person who brings a phone into the venue loses the game.I already had pointed this out at the start of this thread in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=111956&postcount=6

Bill Gletsos
13-07-2006, 02:00 PM
Oooooooooooh no it doesn't! Making a phone call and having one's phone ring are two separate things.
[Calling:The act of dialling and speaking, and the location of the call, versus, Receiving: the phone being switched on and a disturbing noise being made. The fact that commonality of speech may occur is not relevant as it is diluted by location].I disagree. If you are stupid enough to make a phone call inside the tournament hall you deserve to lose the game just as if you would if your phone rang.

EZBeet
13-07-2006, 06:52 PM
I already had pointed this out at the start of this thread in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=111956&postcount=6

Sorry, I have to blame the signal to noise ratio for missing that. I also concede that I think I missed the point anyway, which wasn't so much the phone but rather whether a double forfeit occurs.
If the arbiter is harsh and the other guy doesn't turn up within the hour, it's donuts all round then :)

ElevatorEscapee
13-07-2006, 07:34 PM
Can a situation ever exist where an arbiter declares a loss by forfeit for one player (Player A) yet decides that Player A's opponent should receive half a point? A quarter of a point? Twelve points? (According to the quoted rule, the arbiter decides the score of the opponent of the forfeited player. ;) )

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2006, 08:43 PM
Can a situation ever exist where an arbiter declares a loss by forfeit for one player (Player A) yet decides that Player A's opponent should receive half a point? A quarter of a point? Twelve points? (According to the quoted rule, the arbiter decides the score of the opponent of the forfeited player. ;) )

The arbiter is quite entitled to deliver a result of 0:0.5. An example might be if a player's mobile phone rings while their opponent has only their king remaining.

The arbiter is not entitled to award more than 1 point, by analogy with Rule 13.4 which states that penalties can include


f. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for this game

The possibility of awarding fractional points appears amusingly in Chris Depasquale's parody "The Rook". However I do not know of any case of a DOP doing it or any reason why they would.

ElevatorEscapee
13-07-2006, 09:19 PM
The possibility of awarding fractional points appears amusingly in Chris Depasquale's parody "The Rook". However I do not know of any case of a DOP doing it or any reason why they would.

:lol:

Thanks Kevin. :D

PS can you enlighten us any more about that particular incident? ;)

Kevin Bonham
13-07-2006, 10:06 PM
PS can you enlighten us any more about that particular incident? ;)

The Rook is a work of fiction. I believe it is available in the chesscafe.com archives (click on "The View from Down Under" to download the lot.)

EGOR
14-07-2006, 04:33 PM
No, thats why I previously specifically used the words double forfeit.

Technically the player isnt losing the game on forfeit. The game is declared lost for him by the arbiter. It is similar to the arbiter declaring the game lost for a player under Articvle 13.4 d for any other reason.

As such the game is rated.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction here?:hmm:
I could be wrong.

ElevatorEscapee
14-07-2006, 05:51 PM
The Rook is a work of fiction. I believe it is available in the chesscafe.com archives (click on "The View from Down Under" to download the lot.)
But it was based on a real incident, (but I digress from the original topic). :)

Bill Gletsos
14-07-2006, 06:39 PM
It seems to me that there is a contradiction here?:hmm:No contradiction. You need to read them in context.

I could be wrong.You are. ;)

themovingman
30-07-2006, 01:11 AM
player at-the-board starts player away's clock - 45 minutes pass then player fishes round in his pocket for his mobile phone and evidently answers it, no sound is heard from the phone - has looked at the caller-id and not recognises who it is says quietly (but at the board) "yes", a cackle is heard as player away declares "you lose !"

result ? - apart from from possible physical confrontation whenever these two actually meet

MichaelBaron
30-07-2006, 01:33 AM
player at-the-board starts player away's clock - 45 minutes pass then player fishes round in his pocket for his mobile phone and evidently answers it, no sound is heard from the phone - has looked at the caller-id and not recognises who it is says quietly (but at the board) "yes", a cackle is heard as player away declares "you lose !"

result ? - apart from from possible physical confrontation whenever these two actually meet

Physical confrontation will definitely be the highlight :owned:

MichaelBaron
30-07-2006, 01:34 AM
player at-the-board starts player away's clock - 45 minutes pass then player fishes round in his pocket for his mobile phone and evidently answers it, no sound is heard from the phone - has looked at the caller-id and not recognises who it is says quietly (but at the board) "yes", a cackle is heard as player away declares "you lose !"

result ? - apart from from possible physical confrontation whenever these two actually meet

I think they both forfeit:wall:

Steve K
30-07-2006, 09:56 AM
Why the hell would the player at the board answer his phone? If I have a life or death situation at hand I won't be attending a chess tournament. Are people so attached to communication devices that they can't leave them alone for a couple of hours?

antichrist
30-07-2006, 04:59 PM
If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?

road runner
30-07-2006, 05:04 PM
If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?Ladies first?

antichrist
01-08-2006, 08:58 AM
The guy who can't make a move because no chess set and hates 2D, and whose shoulder won't repair because keeps using so can't move piano so can't get pieces.... there is a hole in the bucket

Phil Bourke
01-08-2006, 10:08 AM
If it is OK to take this topic off on a new tangent :)
What if a player playing his game realises that he has not switched his mobile phone off as per instructions. What would be the correct procedure for the player to remedy this situation without being in a position of being accused of using the mobile phone for assistance?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2006, 12:06 PM
If it is OK to take this topic off on a new tangent :)
What if a player playing his game realises that he has not switched his mobile phone off as per instructions. What would be the correct procedure for the player to remedy this situation without being in a position of being accused of using the mobile phone for assistance?

There is no rule against switching a mobile phone off so I would just do so as quickly as possible! However if a player wanted to avert all suspicion they could simply switch it off under the supervision of the arbiter.


If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?

Interesting question. It's not as prepostrous as it sounds. I could imagine two ways this could happen:

* One player is almost lost on time and about to resign because of their clock when the other makes a blunder placing themselves in a dead lost position on the board and resigns as a matter of principle rather than win on time. (I have seen players resign games that they would surely have won on time had they played on quickly).

* The position is such that both players, one in error, believe themselves to be totally lost.

A player does not have to be on the move to resign so whose move it is is irrelevant. If there was no way of determining who resigned first I would inspect the position and the clocks. If I could see valid (albeit mistaken or over-principled) reasons why each player would have resigned that position I would declare the game a draw. If one or both players had no evident reason for resigning I would declare a double forfeit.

Neville Ledger's book of Tasmanian chess history relates that in one event a player threatened his opponent, who was in contention for a ratings prize but likely to face too hard an opponent if he won, as follows: "If you don't agree to a draw, I'll resign!"

pax
01-08-2006, 01:48 PM
Neville Ledger's book of Tasmanian chess history relates that in one event a player threatened his opponent, who was in contention for a ratings prize but likely to face too hard an opponent if he won, as follows: "If you don't agree to a draw, I'll resign!"

Sounds pretty unlikely. If he didn't want to win, then surely he would have accepted a draw without argument! Losing obviously doesn't do him any favours..

Garvinator
01-08-2006, 01:57 PM
If one or both players had no evident reason for resigning I would declare a double forfeit.
Both players forfeiting or both players losing?

Kevin Bonham
01-08-2006, 02:16 PM
Sounds pretty unlikely. If he didn't want to win, then surely he would have accepted a draw without argument! Losing obviously doesn't do him any favours..

Here's the exact quote:

The best quote of the Tournament was undoubtedly that of Bill Egan to Ken Higson around about move 110 in a R v B + R ending. Knowing that Ken needed 1.5 points to get amongst the prizemoney, and that a win by Ken in their game would almost certainly result in him being drawn against too tough an opponent in the following (final) round, he issued the following memorable threat. "If you don't agree to a draw I'll resign."


Both players forfeiting or both players losing?

Both players losing (ratable) :D . Thanks for pulling me up on that one!

road runner
01-08-2006, 03:24 PM
There was a historical case of two players resigning at the same time. Can't remember where I read it, but it was in some chess book.

Player A makes his move. He realizes that he has blundered, and that a certain reply from the opponent will decide the game. He walks away from the board (presumably to go somewhere and vent loudly). He returns, sees that the opponent has made the required move, and resigns.

Meanwhile, Player B was at the board and made a different move. Upon further reflection, sees the best move, takes his move back and plays the best move (after carefully looking over his shoulder and so forth). When Player A returns to the board, he is remorseful about his cheating, and resigns.

Garvinator
01-08-2006, 09:47 PM
Both players losing (ratable) :D . Thanks for pulling me up on that one!I will admit I was thinking more about the effect for colours, but rating implications matter too;)

themovingman
07-08-2006, 12:34 AM
Why the hell would the player at the board answer his phone? If I have a life or death situation at hand I won't be attending a chess tournament. Are people so attached to communication devices that they can't leave them alone for a couple of hours?

are you a fireman - or a wharfie on-call ? , True you should only check the ph as you are walking out the door [is it a problem if you look at caller-id in the playing venue ?] and once identified why the call then tell the Arbiter to convey message to opponent . With prior notice it is up to the arbiter how to handle the situation.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 11:41 AM
A player does not have to be on the move to resign so whose move it is is irrelevant. If there was no way of determining who resigned first I would inspect the position and the clocks. If I could see valid (albeit mistaken or over-principled) reasons why each player would have resigned that position I would declare the game a draw. If one or both players had no evident reason for resigning I would declare a double forfeit.

Not sure I understand the reasoning here. Surely a resignation, whether for valid reasons or not, should mean a loss. So I would declare a double loss (0-0). But the wording of the Laws is problematic "5.1b: The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game." Ergo, since both players had opponents declaring resignation, both win the game according to this, so an absurd and unfair 1/1 score is implied. FIDE should fix this.

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2007, 07:23 PM
Surely a resignation, whether for valid reasons or not, should mean a loss.

I don't agree. If player A resigns, but player B somehow failing to notice A's resignation (say, A says "I resign" but B is deaf) then resigns as well (and it is clear that A has resigned first) then B's resignation clearly does not mean a loss; in fact B wins. So a resignation only automatically means a loss if it ends the game.

It is not correct for the arbiter to assume both players have resigned truly simultaneously (since this is physically either impossible or unlikely in the extreme) and therefore the arbiter cannot jump to conclusions that both players have at the same instant ended the game (which might justify a 0-0). It's not fair to a player to rule that they have lost because they might have ended the game when this is unproven. It is also not fair to rule that they have won when it's not clear their opponent has ended the game. However the game has clearly ended so a draw is the only fair result barring extenuating circumstances of the sort I mentioned. A replay is another option but in my view not correct given that the game has ended.


But the wording of the Laws is problematic "5.1b: The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game." Ergo, since both players had opponents declaring resignation, both win the game according to this, so an absurd and unfair 1/1 score is implied. FIDE should fix this.

No arbiter would award 1-1 without being laughed at.

I do not think the situation is worth regulating. It is too rare and the harm done by an "incorrect" ruling on it would be too negligible to justify lengthening the Laws further with a clause dealing with it.

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2007, 07:46 PM
No arbiter would award 1-1 without being laughed at.I recall reading but cannot recall where that the total result of the game should not exceed the points available for it.

Therefore in a normally scored game of chess where 1 point is up for grabs the possible results are:
1 - 0
0 - 1
0.5 - 0.5
0 - 0
0.5 - 0
0 - 0.5

One could imagine all sorts of variations on this where a win was worth 3 points a draw 1 and a loss 0. However even then the sum of the scores would not exceed 3.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 10:12 AM
Surely a resignation, whether for valid reasons or not, should mean a loss.



I don't agree. If player A resigns, but player B somehow failing to notice A's resignation (say, A says "I resign" but B is deaf) then resigns as well (and it is clear that A has resigned first) then B's resignation clearly does not mean a loss; in fact B wins. So a resignation only automatically means a loss if it ends the game.

We were talking about simultaneous resignations. I don't even consider B's "resignation" as a resignation under the rules, because it was after the game had ended.


It is not correct for the arbiter to assume both players have resigned truly simultaneously (since this is physically either impossible or unlikely in the extreme) and therefore the arbiter cannot jump to conclusions that both players have at the same instant ended the game (which might justify a 0-0).

Why not? It happens commonly in cases of flag fall. In this case, there is an explicit statement in the rules declaring a game drawn if it is impossible to establish which flag fell first. If it were not for this explicit stament, the laws would entail 0-0 for double flag fall. There is no such explicit statement for double resignation, so 0-0 should stand.


It's not fair to a player to rule that they have lost because they might have ended the game when this is unproven. It is also not fair to rule that they have won when it's not clear their opponent has ended the game. However the game has clearly ended so a draw is the only fair result barring extenuating circumstances of the sort I mentioned.

Why is it unfair? A player who resigns should expect to score 0, so a 0-0 score would be awarding both what they thought was warranted.


A replay is another option but in my view not correct given that the game has ended.

Agreed.


But the wording of the Laws is problematic "5.1b: The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game." Ergo, since both players had opponents declaring resignation, both win the game according to this, so an absurd and unfair 1/1 score is implied. FIDE should fix this.


No arbiter would award 1-1 without being laughed at.

This is a reductio ad absurdum of the current wording. The laws themselves clearly state that the opponent of the resigner wins, not that the resigner loses as it should be.


I do not think the situation is worth regulating. It is too rare and the harm done by an "incorrect" ruling on it would be too negligible to justify lengthening the Laws further with a clause dealing with it.

A good lawyer might be able to argue that the text of the laws themselves, not on what might be laughted at, is the only guide. And how much longer would it be to say that a resigner loses, and this ends the game? As for rarity, you brought up this situation!


I recall reading but cannot recall where that the total result of the game should not exceed the points available for it.

Here is another rule that should be explicit in the text.

Ian Rout
17-04-2007, 12:04 PM
Like any other sport chess has a practice or principle, if not a rule in all cases, about who gets the benefit of the doubt. If there is doubt about whether a player touched a piece then touch-move doesn't apply. If there is doubt over whether a player has failed to reach move 40 then they don't lose on time. If there is doubt over whether a batsman is out then they aren't.

It's clearly the intent of the Laws that only one player can resign, as a resignation ends the game. A resignation by the other player, no matter how closely following, has no effect because the game is over. So only the first resignation counts (as noted above it is unlikley that they were simultaneous, if you measure it to enough decimal places). As there is doubt over whether each resignation is valid (that is, was the first) I would reject both.

It may not be the perfect solution but it's both defensible and avoids ridiculous consequences.

Aaron Guthrie
17-04-2007, 02:50 PM
It is not correct for the arbiter to assume both players have resigned truly simultaneously (since this is physically either impossible or unlikely in the extreme) and therefore the arbiter cannot jump to conclusions that both players have at the same instant ended the game (which might justify a 0-0).A handshake begins for both players simultaneously. If we consider the handshake as a communicative act which can signal a resignation, then we could have a case of both players simultaneously resigning. This is the way that a lot of games actually end, with an implicit understanding signaled by a handshake. Probably this isn't a technical resignation under the rules. There is also the argument that the communicative act failed, since there wasn't a (true) understanding between the actors.

However the game has clearly ended so a draw is the only fair result barring extenuating circumstances of the sort I mentioned. A replay is another option but in my view not correct given that the game has ended.Aha but in the case I described, if you took the philosophical argument (the communicative act failed) then the game wouldn't have actually ended. It was just thought to have ended by both players, but on closer inspectition it is not the case.

I do not think the situation is worth regulating. It is too rare and the harm done by an "incorrect" ruling on it would be too negligible to justify lengthening the Laws further with a clause dealing with it.Might make for some interesting philosophy though :)

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 04:05 PM
A handshake begins for both players simultaneously. If we consider the handshake as a communicative act which can signal a resignation, then we could have a case of both players simultaneously resigning.FIDE have previously ruled that a handshake does not signify resignation. The main reason being to avoid any possible misunderstanding on behalf of either player. e.g. one player believes they are accepting a resignation, the other believes they are accepting a draw.

Aaron Guthrie
17-04-2007, 06:00 PM
FIDE have previously ruled that a handshake does not signify resignation. The main reason being to avoid any possible misunderstanding on behalf of either player. e.g. one player believes they are accepting a resignation, the other believes they are accepting a draw.Then let it never be said that the FIDE (or at least those who write the handbook) are not philosophers.

Spiny Norman
17-04-2007, 06:15 PM
FIDE have previously ruled that a handshake does not signify resignation. The main reason being to avoid any possible misunderstanding on behalf of either player. e.g. one player believes they are accepting a resignation, the other believes they are accepting a draw.
So ... does that mean that, if my opponent extends his hand to shake, I should:

(a) shake?
(b) ask him whether he is resigning?
(c) ask him whether he is offering a draw?
(d) call an arbiter?
(e) all of the above?
(f) something else?

*** BTW, I always get razzed by the other guys at the club because I am so formal about offering a draw ... you know ... make your move, say "I offer a draw" and press the clock.

Basil
17-04-2007, 06:29 PM
Yup. If in doubt. Go the procedure.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 06:57 PM
So ... does that mean that, if my opponent extends his hand to shake, I should:

(a) shake?
(b) ask him whether he is resigning?
(c) ask him whether he is offering a draw?
(d) call an arbiter?
(e) all of the above?
(f) something else?

*** BTW, I always get razzed by the other guys at the club because I am so formal about offering a draw ... you know ... make your move, say "I offer a draw" and press the clock.The relevant Fide Article says The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

Just offering to shake hands isnt a declaration.

It would be sufficient proof to any competent arbiter that your opponent had resigned if he tips his king over and then offers to shake your hand.

In reality the bottom line is you need to be certain that he is indeed resigning.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2007, 06:59 PM
We were talking about simultaneous resignations. I don't even consider B's "resignation" as a resignation under the rules, because it was after the game had ended.

Exactly. Which means you accept that a resignation after the end of the game is not a resignation and the player does not deserve to lose. By the same token if you are not sure a resignation was after the end of the game or not then the player does not clearly deserve to lose. Just because you don't know who resigned first doesn't mean the resignations were really simultaneous.


Why not? It happens commonly in cases of flag fall. In this case, there is an explicit statement in the rules declaring a game drawn if it is impossible to establish which flag fell first. If it were not for this explicit stament, the laws would entail 0-0 for double flag fall. There is no such explicit statement for double resignation, so 0-0 should stand.

There is no such explicit statement because unlike double flag fall, double resignation virtually never happens and is not worth explicitly regulating, since an arbiter could determine it as a draw precisely by analogy with double flag fall.


Why is it unfair? A player who resigns should expect to score 0, so a 0-0 score would be awarding both what they thought was warranted.

But a player whose opponent resigns should expect to score 1, so expectations are no real guide to what happens here.


This is a reductio ad absurdum of the current wording. The laws themselves clearly state that the opponent of the resigner wins, not that the resigner loses as it should be.

But that need not apply if there is doubt over who resigned first.


A good lawyer might be able to argue that the text of the laws themselves, not on what might be laughted at, is the only guide.

Incorrect because of the preface which gives considerable leeway in any case that is not explicitly covered. 1-1 would be laughed out of court.


And how much longer would it be to say that a resigner loses, and this ends the game? As for rarity, you brought up this situation!

Actually antichrist did in post 66.

Also saying that would not resolve the problem of what to do when there are two apparently simultaneous resignations. It is still not explicitly covered in a way that makes it clear it should be 0-0 rather than a draw or some other outcome.

Re the total-points-per-game thing, at the very lowest levels of untimed muckabout unrated junior chess where there is nothing whatsoever at stake I have sometimes awarded 1:1/2 in certain adjudication situations.

Also if systems like 3,1,0 in which a draw reduces the total of points available are accepted (albeit unrated) then why not have systems where in some cases the total if points available might be increased? For instance at very low junior chess levels where the emphasis is above all else on encouraging players who might get dispirited by collecting zeros I have seen this sort of thing used:

5 for a win
4 for the clearly better side of a draw
3 for any other draw
2 for a very unlucky loss
1 for any other loss

(In this system the normal total is 6 but it can be 7).

But for serious competition I agree - the normal maximum should not be exceeded.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 09:51 PM
Exactly. Which means you accept that a resignation after the end of the game is not a resignation and the player does not deserve to lose. By the same token if you are not sure a resignation was after the end of the game or not then the player does not clearly deserve to lose. Just because you don't know who resigned first doesn't mean the resignations were really simultaneous.

Since you are keen on applying an analogy of to double flag fall to double resignation, here's another one:


6.9 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

Apply this Bishop Butler rule to when the resignation is said to occur.


There is no such explicit statement because unlike double flag fall, double resignation virtually never happens and is not worth explicitly regulating, since an arbiter could determine it as a draw precisely by analogy with double flag fall.

That's if you think the analogy is comparable. I also think 0.5-0.5 is the "fairest" result, but what I think is not the issue.


Incorrect because of the preface which gives considerable leeway in any case that is not explicitly covered.

That doesn't help here, because the situation is explicitly covered by the rules as they stand, but in an absurd way.


1-1 would be laughed out of court.

But maybe not out of a secular court if the judge relied on the text of the Laws.


Actually antichrist did in post 66.

Apologies.


Also if systems like 3,1,0 in which a draw reduces the total of points available are accepted (albeit unrated) then why not have systems where in some cases the total if points available might be increased?

I disapprove of this, because a draw is a legitimate result in chess and should not be penalized.


But for serious competition I agree — the normal maximum should not be exceeded.

I agree too. So why don't the Laws make it explicit.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2007, 10:32 PM
Since you are keen on applying an analogy of to double flag fall to double resignation, here's another one:


6.9 A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.

Apply this Bishop Butler rule to when the resignation is said to occur.

The purpose of 6.9 is actually not to define the point at which flagfall occurs but to define the responsibility of the arbiter, and the rights of the players, to act upon flagfalls they observe. 6.12 defines the procedure for a case where both flags are down.


That doesn't help here, because the situation is explicitly covered by the rules as they stand, but in an absurd way.

No it isn't. This is going round and round in circles, but the situation is not explicitly covered, since to rule that one player (say A) has won the game you need to know that that A had not already resigned at the point where B had resigned. But you don't know this. The arbiter isn't in an explicit position to declare either player the winner. All the arbiter explicitly knows, at best, is that the game has been ended.


But maybe not out of a secular court if the judge relied on the text of the Laws.

Judges don't generally engage in pedantic exactitude of that sort anymore. They consider the intent behind the wording in cases where an overly literal reading appears to suggest a perverse outcome.


I agree too. So why don't the Laws make it explicit.

I would have no problem with the 1-point maximum total being made explicit in the Laws, especially to ensure 13.4f is not misused.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 11:24 PM
This is going round and round in circles, but the situation is not explicitly covered,

What part of "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns" is not explicit?

It is no good to hide behind that weaselly preface. Some years ago in NZ, an IA pointed out that the rules as they stood had serious anomalies, e.g. mating with an illegal move winning the game, as the words stood. Some weaseled away quoting that preface about not covering every possible situation, but the problem was that the situation WAS covered wrongly. FIDE has since fixed that one.

since to rule that one player (say A) has won the game you need to know that that A had not already resigned at the point where B had resigned. But you don't know this. The arbiter isn't in an explicit position to declare either player the winner. All the arbiter explicitly knows, at best, is that the game has been ended.


Judges don't generally engage in pedantic exactitude of that sort anymore. They consider the intent behind the wording in cases where an overly literal reading appears to suggest a perverse outcome.

Depends on the judge. Some like Antonin Scalia are very strong on the original meaning of the words in the law (or Constitution of the US) some of his colleagues invent new rights out of penumbras and emanations.

In this case, it is good for wording of the Laws of Chess to reflect what we know is the right thing.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2007, 12:34 AM
What part of "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns" is not explicit?

Not relevant. What is is explicit is that if this happens it immediately ends the game, but no guidance is given on what to do if it is not clear whether a previous resignation had happened or not.


It is no good to hide behind that weaselly preface. Some years ago in NZ, an IA pointed out that the rules as they stood had serious anomalies, e.g. mating with an illegal move winning the game, as the words stood. Some weaseled away quoting that preface about not covering every possible situation, but the problem was that the situation WAS covered wrongly. FIDE has since fixed that one.

Reuben discussed this in the first edition of his book and pointed out that although it had finally been fixed no competent arbiter would have given a claim of mate with an illegal move the time of day anyway. And, as discussed in the clock-not-adding-increment thread, FIDE have specifically and deliberately strengthened the role of the Preface and moved away from attempts at exhaustive definition.

Rincewind
18-04-2007, 01:11 AM
Not relevant. What is is explicit is that if this happens it immediately ends the game, but no guidance is given on what to do if it is not clear whether a previous resignation had happened or not.

I think you are right in this case, A 0-0 is no better than 1-1 in terms of being sensible. The first resigner gives the game to his opponent. If that really cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the arbiter then 1/2-1/2 makes the most sense.

It was noted that a double win is patently nufair as both players are getting the point. This is true. The same principle applies if the result is 0-0. Rating a 0-0 is another problem, as doing so would probably lead to rating system deflation.

In short, regardless of whether the rules say the opponent wins or the resigner loses, they are both equally explicit and both if interpreted as Jono has in this thread would lead to nonsensical results. However, I think this is because of the way Jono is interpreting the laws and not a flaw with the laws themselves.


And, as discussed in the clock-not-adding-increment thread, FIDE have specifically and deliberately strengthened the role of the Preface and moved away from attempts at exhaustive definition.

BTW I still think you are wrong on that thread but time availability and a suspicion that to do so would be ploughing uphill prevents from me taking up the good fight.

Aaron Guthrie
18-04-2007, 06:24 AM
I think you are right in this case, A 0-0 is no better than 1-1 in terms of being sensible. The first resigner gives the game to his opponent. If that really cannot be determined to the satisfaction of the arbiter then 1/2-1/2 makes the most sense.I don't get why 1/2-1/2 makes sense. To me what would make sense is that you send them back to the board to continue the game, or suggest to them that they agree to a draw. Unless they both insist that they have resigned and refuse either option.

I guess in that case you have to score it, 0-0 sits best with me but I am not going to argue that point. Both you and Kevin agree on 1/2-1/2 so it must be right ;)


It was noted that a double win is patently nufair as both players are getting the point. This is true. The same principle applies if the result is 0-0. Rating a 0-0 is another problem, as doing so would probably lead to rating system deflation.If they both manage to lose the same game I reckon it's pretty sure that they need a reduction in their rating :)

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2007, 12:52 PM
Not relevant. What is is explicit is that if this happens it immediately ends the game, but no guidance is given on what to do if it is not clear whether a previous resignation had happened or not.

What is explicit is that the opponent of the resigner wins!


Reuben discussed this in the first edition of his book and pointed out that although it had finally been fixed no competent arbiter would have given a claim of mate with an illegal move the time of day anyway.

No, he wouldn't have. But it was still important to fix it to protect players against rogue arbiters and players who wanted to push for the law to stand as written.

There was an even worse omission that has been fixed: there was an edition of the Laws that didn't explicitly forbid moving a piece away from blocking a check. There was also a crass over-definition where check was defined as an attack by one or two pieces, ergo a piece could have moved and exposed the king to a third attack so it was no longer in check by that definition. and an over that was pinned against the king.


And, as discussed in the clock-not-adding-increment thread, FIDE have specifically and deliberately strengthened the role of the Preface and moved away from attempts at exhaustive definition.

But should they have?

Denis_Jessop
20-04-2007, 05:37 PM
<snip>



Reuben discussed this in the first edition of his book and pointed out that although it had finally been fixed no competent arbiter would have given a claim of mate with an illegal move the time of day anyway. And, as discussed in the clock-not-adding-increment thread, FIDE have specifically and deliberately strengthened the role of the Preface and moved away from attempts at exhaustive definition.

Moroever the Preface had been there in effect for many years before it was formally put in the Laws. The current Preface to the Laws is almost identical to a FIDE Rules Commission interpretation of 1959 in which the Commission said that its interpretations of the Laws would be made with regard to the principle in what is now the Preface. Indeed, if one looks at the old Commission interpretations, it is found that many of them have now been included in the Laws. So the Preface is by no means new - it goes back almost 50 years. I believe that without it the Laws would become something like the Taxation Act and be almost unreadable.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 06:59 PM
Moroever the Preface had been there in effect for many years before it was formally put in the Laws. The current Preface to the Laws is almost identical to a FIDE Rules Commission interpretation of 1959 in which the Commission said that its interpretations of the Laws would be made with regard to the principle in what is now the Preface. Indeed, if one looks at the old Commission interpretations, it is found that many of them have now been included in the Laws.

There was even one edition that said something like that, as I said earlier, but may not have remembered 100% correctly.


So the Preface is by no means new - it goes back almost 50 years. I believe that without it the Laws would become something like the Taxation Act and be almost unreadable.

Is that the reason for the national disgrace called Taxation Act, bigger than the sydney phone book? Politicians could simplify it at will and impose a Flat Tax like the Baltic and Eastern European countries. The simplicity, and resultant efficiency of processing and huge saving of tax preparation time is likely one reason their economies are growing so fast. But our political masters want to (mis)use the tax system for social engineering and give breaks to their friends.

But this Preface seems to be an excuse to delay making needed changes.

Denis_Jessop
20-04-2007, 08:49 PM
But this Preface seems to be an excuse to delay making needed changes.

I don't agree with this at all. Both the Preface and the 1959 Interpretation make clear why the principle it embodies is there. As I said, were it not the case and attempts were made to cover every situation, the Laws may well become unworkable. There may however be a good case for returning to the practice of the Rules Commission giving interpretations as these can say things that cannot properly be put in the laws though these days that may not be practicable due to the volume of requests that would be made - see quote below.

There is an interesting Commission Interpretation of 1974 that explains the principle of what is now the Preface rather well


During recent years the Commission has been more or less overwhelmed by a steadily growing number of proposals and questions. That, of itself, is a good thing.

However, there is a marked tendency in those many questions and proposals, to bring more and more refinements and details into the Laws. Clearly the intention is to get more and more detailed instruction concerning "how to act in such and such a case". This may be profitable for a certain type of arbiter, but at the same time may be a severe handicap for another, generally the best, type of arbiter.

The Commission in its entirety takes the firm position that the Laws should be as short and as clear as possible. The Commission strongly believes that minor details should be left to the discretion of the arbiter. Each arbiter should have the opportunity, in case of conflict, to take into account all the factors of the case and should not be bound by too detailed sub-rules which may not be applicable to the case in question, According to the Commission, the Laws of Chess must be short and clear and leave sufficient scope for the arbiter to deal with exceptional or unusual cases.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2007, 11:45 PM
I don't get why 1/2-1/2 makes sense. To me what would make sense is that you send them back to the board to continue the game, or suggest to them that they agree to a draw. Unless they both insist that they have resigned and refuse either option.

I was saying that the game has to be over because it's clear that a resignation ends the game. So if you know someone has resigned but don't know who, then you know the game is over.

Maybe that's not that clearcut though:


The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

Someone might just argue that "this" applies not to an opponent declaring they resign, but to a player being awarded a win on that account, and therefore that the arbiter could decide to ignore both resignations and order a play on.

I still think declaring the game over is correct, mainly because I think having a game continue after both players had expressed a wish to concede it is ridiculous, when a game doesn't continue (except in tournaments that limit draw offers) if both players "simultaneously" express a wish that it be drawn!


What is explicit is that the opponent of the resigner wins!

But it's just as explicit that resigning (given that it means admitting defeat) is losing, which scores zero. So 1-1 is no more consistent as a solution.

Kevin Bonham
21-04-2007, 11:47 PM
But should they have?

I don't think they did themselves too many favours. But the fact that they've taken that stance is highly useful for interpreting the Laws as they stand.

Aaron Guthrie
22-04-2007, 06:39 AM
I was saying that the game has to be over because it's clear that a resignation ends the game. So if you know someone has resigned but don't know who, then you know the game is over.If the act of resigning wasn't witnessed it is just the say so of the player. If the act was witnessed but was a communicative act that failed it failed as an act of resigning. This line of reasoning is a bit of a stretch though. OK if the game must be over then I won't make any arguments about what score it should be.


I still think declaring the game over is correct, mainly because I think having a game continue after both players had expressed a wish to concede it is ridiculous,It gets worse, the situation I envisage is that they both make a mad dash back to the board to see who can resign first!

Capablanca-Fan
22-04-2007, 08:50 AM
ISomeone might just argue that "this" applies not to an opponent declaring they resign, but to a player being awarded a win on that account, and therefore that the arbiter could decide to ignore both resignations and order a play on.

That would be hard to argue, because of the rule of pronoun antecedent, and by comparison with the other ways of ending the game.


II still think declaring the game over is correct, mainly because I think having a game continue after both players had expressed a wish to concede it is ridiculous, when a game doesn't continue (except in tournaments that limit draw offers) if both players "simultaneously" express a wish that it be drawn!

Fair comment.


IBut it's just as explicit that resigning (given that it means admitting defeat) is losing, which scores zero.

According to the Laws, it is explicit that the opponent of the resigner wins, and it is merely implicit that the resigner loses.


ISo 1-1 is no more consistent as a solution.

I'm not saying I like 1-1, or that an arbiter should award that, but that it seems to be what the text demands.

Garvinator
22-04-2007, 11:21 AM
Run for the hills everyone, its the clock thread mark 2 :P

Basil
22-04-2007, 03:22 PM
Run for the hills everyone, its the clock thread mark 2 :P
Nah, 'tis much worse. This time they think they're doing something worthwhile! This will give them no end of impetus to reach the the bottom of it.

Denis_Jessop
22-04-2007, 05:15 PM
Nah, 'tis much worse. This time they think they're doing something worthwhile! This will give them no end of impetus to reach the the bottom of it.

I fear there is no bottom. Moreover it has the capacity to go infinitely sideways :rolleyes:

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
22-04-2007, 08:10 PM
On a more serious note, (and so as not to be accused of threadjacking), this is a very serious issue here. We just can't have people going around and resigning their chess games willy-nilly and being given points just because their opponent resigned at precisely the same time (or so close to the same time as to be indistinguishable)! :D

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 08:24 PM
According to the Laws, it is explicit that the opponent of the resigner wins, and it is merely implicit that the resigner loses.

Is that a significant difference? The implication is still clearcut.

ElevatorEscapee
23-04-2007, 09:18 PM
Consider this scenario: "Grandmaster mutual resignations"... both players resign at exactly the same time on mutual agreement in such a manner as it cannot be determined who resigned first!

Result: 1-1.

Now isn't a 1-1 result more desirable for both competitors than &#189;-&#189;?

Theoretcally, an entire tournament could be conducted where in every game, each player resigns at exactly the same time... meaning everybody wins! Yay!!! :D

Garvinator
27-04-2007, 03:38 AM
Would it be possible for the ACF to actually make a law change motion to fide from-

The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

to

The game is lost by the player who resigns.


Wouldn't this then at least stop the possibility of a 1-1 being recorded as the score of the game?

Garvinator
27-04-2007, 03:42 AM
In regards to the idea of sending the players back to continue, surely this cant be done in this situation because of:

5.1 b The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

From my quick re-reading of the simul resignations, it is a fact that both players have resigned, just not sure who first or if at the same time.

So the game is over, the question is only, what score to award?

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2007, 08:20 AM
Would it be possible for the ACF to actually make a law change motion to fide from-

The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

to

The game is lost by the player who resigns.


Wouldn't this then at least stop the possibility of a 1-1 being recorded as the score of the game?

Seems reasonable, and this hardly is a blowout of complexity in the Laws that some are worried about. This also avoids 1/2 - 1/2, since a player who gives up doesn't deserve 1/2.

Aaron Guthrie
27-04-2007, 11:05 AM
The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

to

The game is lost by the player who resigns.Does "the player" imply that only one person can be said player?

Kevin Bonham
27-04-2007, 01:36 PM
Wouldn't this then at least stop the possibility of a 1-1 being recorded as the score of the game?

I reckon there is no possibility because no arbiter would possibly be that stupid. Then again, human stupidity is always finding new depths to plumb.

Denis_Jessop
27-04-2007, 07:45 PM
Would it be possible for the ACF to actually make a law change motion to fide from-

The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

to

The game is lost by the player who resigns.


Wouldn't this then at least stop the possibility of a 1-1 being recorded as the score of the game?

The short answer is "no; it wouldn't".

If someone is mad enough to argue under the present law for a 1 - 1 score where both players in a game resign at the same time, the change you suggest would not affect their stance.

That is, at present, the argument for 1 - 1 is that, in a game A v B, A is entitled to 1 because B declared he resigned and so A won and B is entitled to 1 because A declared he resigned and so B won.

Were the law to say "the game is lost etc", the same argument could be put on the basis that the opponent of the player who loses, wins. So A would claim 1 on the ground that B had lost the game by declaration and B would claim 1 on the ground that A had lost by declaration.

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
27-04-2007, 10:50 PM
I reckon there is no possibility because no arbiter would possibly be that stupid. Then again, human stupidity is always finding new depths to plumb.

When you assume, you make an 'ASS' out of 'U' and 'ME'... ;)

Actually, especially out of 'U'! :P

CameronD
28-04-2007, 12:31 AM
:D Right... On the count of three we'll resign. 1..2..3 resign... we both win!! :D Ya!!!!!!!

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2007, 09:56 AM
If someone is mad enough to argue under the present law for a 1 - 1 score where both players in a game resign at the same time,

It's not a question of madness, but that the laws as written imply this and should be fixed to avoid a mad result.


Were the law to say "the game is lost etc", the same argument could be put on the basis that the opponent of the player who loses, wins. So A would claim 1 on the ground that B had lost the game by declaration and B would claim 1 on the ground that A had lost by declaration.

Not so. There are other examples in the Laws where the opponent of a loser is not a winner. One good example is the mobile phone going off where the opponent had no possibility of mating with any sequence of illegal moves, scored 0-1/2. It is also possible to award 0-0 if both mobiles go off simultaneously, both refuse to comply with the Laws, or both are more than an hour late.

Denis_Jessop
29-04-2007, 12:16 PM
It's not a question of madness, but that the laws as written imply this and should be fixed to avoid a mad result.

The Laws of Chess contain no such implication and it is madness to argue that they do.


Not so. There are other examples in the Laws where the opponent of a loser is not a winner. One good example is the mobile phone going off where the opponent had no possibility of mating with any sequence of illegal moves, scored 0-1/2. It is also possible to award 0-0 if both mobiles go off simultaneously, both refuse to comply with the Laws, or both are more than an hour late.

This is an excellent example of a strong chess player having next to no idea of how to think logically and clearly outside the 64 squares. The point (which has no substance) has already been answered in other posts.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2007, 07:49 PM
Not so. There are other examples in the Laws where the opponent of a loser is not a winner.

True, but there are no such examples where a total score exceeding 1 is possible.

Aaron Guthrie
29-04-2007, 08:12 PM
What is explicit is that the opponent of the resigner winsI think what is explicit is something about the game.

The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns.It seems to me this sentence is talking about the game. The sentence is about a quality of the game. The quality in question is that of, who it is that won. Who it is that won is, the player whose opponent declares he resigns.

the:
1. (used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.So, "the player whose..." is refering to a singular thing. So two people cannot be that person. So it is explicit in the rules that two people cannot have won the game.

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2007, 11:35 PM
This is an excellent example of a strong chess player having next to no idea of how to think logically and clearly outside the 64 squares.

This is an example of lawyer and bureaucrat who has no idea how to argue logically from what the text actually says as opposed to what we all know it should imply if written correctly, and is also arrogant in attacking someone with extensive training in formal logic.


The point (which has no substance) has already been answered in other posts.

No it hasn't. The "answers" merely point out something we already know, that 1-1 is an absurd result. They have not shown that the laws as written don't imply this. Please learn what reductio ad absurdum means.

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2007, 11:41 PM
I think what is explicit is something about the game.
It seems to me this sentence is talking about the game. The sentence is about a quality of the game. The quality in question is that of, who it is that won. Who it is that won is, the player whose opponent declares he resigns.
So, "the player whose..." is refering to a singular thing. So two people cannot be that person. So it is explicit in the rules that two people cannot have won the game.

That's a specious understanding of the definite article. By this "reasoning", 3.2 must entail that there is only one bishop on the board.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2007, 12:02 AM
extensive training in formal logic.

... is probably a disadvantage in the interpretation of anything produced by FIDE. :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 12:07 AM
... is probably a disadvantage in the interpretation of anything produced by FIDE. :owned:

:lol: :wall:

Denis_Jessop
30-04-2007, 11:48 AM
This is an example of lawyer and bureaucrat who has no idea how to argue logically from what the text actually says as opposed to what we all know it should imply if written correctly, and is also arrogant in attacking someone with extensive training in formal logic.



No it hasn't. The "answers" merely point out something we already know, that 1-1 is an absurd result. They have not shown that the laws as written don't imply this. Please learn what reductio ad absurdum means.

Before you start criticising my comments you need to know a bit about the current and preferable approach to statutory interpretation. You make the fatal mistake of believing that a strict literal approach is correct, or at least acceptable, when this in now rejected not only by any intelligent lawyer but also by every legislature in Australia. If the strict literal interpretation leads to an absurd result is is rejected. That is but one reason why your approach to this matter is nonsense. There is no point in trying to reason with people whose suggested interpretations of the laws are irrational. Still, in my experience of a certain type of chess player, you can take comfort in the fact that your are not alone in your madness.

DJ

PS And while you no doubt get a certain sense of smug satisfaction it using the term "bureaucrat", irrelevantly as it so happens, let me remind you that the Australian Attorney-General's Department, of which I was an officer in the relevant area, was the leader in introducing the principle of the purposive interpretation of stautes into Australian law. As for formal logic, I also studied a bit of that at university and nothing is more useless than that for resolving the issues we are discussing. Indeed, your problems of understanding may well derive from your reliance on this arcane discipline.

Aaron Guthrie
30-04-2007, 12:30 PM
That's a specious understanding of the definite article. By this "reasoning", 3.2 must entail that there is only one bishop on the board.You are arguing on a literal interpretation. My interpretation is perfectly correct on literal grounds.

3.2 does not entail that only one bishop can be on the board. If it did entail something like that it would entail that there is only one bishop in the universe. But in 3.2 it is this usage that applies-


5. (used to mark a noun as being used generically): The dog is a quadruped.Thus your analogy does not bust me.

"the player whose..." is a definite description. Usage 1, as I presented to you, is correct.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 12:32 PM
Before you start criticising my comments you need to know a bit about the current and preferable approach to statutory interpretation. You make the fatal mistake of believing that a strict literal approach is correct, or at least acceptable, when this in now rejected not only by any intelligent lawyer but also by every legislature in Australia. If the strict literal interpretation leads to an absurd result is is rejected.

At least you now concede that the literal interpretation does lead to an absurd result, which was my point all along. There is no downside to fixing the working as GGrayGGray suggest, and plenty of upside.


That is but one reason why your approach to this matter is nonsense. There is no point in trying to reason with people whose suggested interpretations of the laws are irrational. Still, in my experience of a certain type of chess player, you can take comfort in the fact that your are not alone in your madness.

Before you start criticising me, you should try the courtesy of criticising what I actually argue. It is rather mad to argue that a silly wording should not be fixed just because some judges won't take the law as written. Not all jurisdictions are as sensible as Australia — witness the absurd torts in America where millions of damages are awarded against McDonalds because some silly bint spilled hot coffee on herself, or obviously guilty criminals put back on the street because of technicalities.

No wonder there are so many lawyer jokes — clearly you are not alone.


As for formal logic, I also studied a bit of that at university and nothing is more useless than that for resolving the issues we are discussing. Indeed, your problems of understanding may well derive from your reliance on this arcane discipline.

Formal logic underpins other disciplines.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 12:34 PM
"the player whose..." is a definite description. Usage 1, as I presented to you, is correct.

And applies to any player where it fits, without any implication that it's a single player.

Aaron Guthrie
30-04-2007, 12:41 PM
And applies to any player where it fits, without any implication that it's a single player.What makes it a definite description just is the fact that it can apply to only one thing. So, no.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2007, 12:58 PM
witness the absurd torts in America where millions of damages are awarded against McDonalds because some silly bint spilled hot coffee on herself,

...after McDonalds refused to settle out of court for $20K.

There is actually a lot of debate back and forward about that case so it is not so clearly absurd as it might seem to someone wishing to use it to argue that courts really favour silly technical interpretations. For example I give you links to a piece supporting the verdict (http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts) and a piece opposing it (http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html). Both these pieces are written with evident potential for bias and doubtless the opinions of neutral legal professionals would be more interesting still.

Bill Gletsos
30-04-2007, 01:44 PM
I seriously doubt the FIDE Rules Commission would waste any time on this given that a simultaneous resignation is so utterly unlikely.
In virtually all practical cases one player would be resigning before the other.
In the inftessimal situiations where it cannot be determined who resigned first, then the action take is at the discretion of the arbiter with the proviso of the game result being no more than 1 point).

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 04:45 PM
...after McDonalds refused to settle out of court for $20K.

Which according to your second link was upped to $300k, and as it says, why should Macca's settle when they had done nothing wrong (Starbucks sells hugely popular coffee at the same temp as scalded the woman)? And 12 other courts had previously thrown out the case (hmm, that might actually support Denis Jessop's thesis that courts rule sensibly :owned:).


There is actually a lot of debate back and forward about that case so it is not so clearly absurd as it might seem to someone wishing to use it to argue that courts really favour silly technical interpretations. For example I give you links to a piece supporting the verdict (http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts) and a piece opposing it (http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html). Both these pieces are written with evident potential for bias and doubtless the opinions of neutral legal professionals would be more interesting still.

Thanx for both the links, both of which were very informative. The second link seems better argued, and points out that McDonalds is merely the poster child for many absurd torts.

For example, John Edwards made millions out of junk science and shameless jury manipulation, claiming that a child acquired cerebral palsy because a Caesarian was not done in time. So thanks to this would-be president, far more unnecessary Caesarians are performed, and the "little people" he professes to support can sometimes not even find an ob-gyn because they have been driven out of business by the resulting skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs.


McDonald's sells billions of cups of coffee. There had been 700 complaints over hot coffee in the previous decade, which translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million, with only a small fraction of the complaints reflecting injuries as severe as Liebeck's. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.

Well, the number of simultaneous resignations is alleged to be so tiny as not to be worth fixing problematic wording of the Laws. Yet the chances of being scalded by Macca's coffee was also infinitesimal, yet they were hit for millions of punitive damages, which merely increase the cost for future customers.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2007, 04:51 PM
Which according to your second link was upped to $300k, and as it says, why should Macca's settle when they had done nothing wrong (Starbucks sells hugely popular coffee at the same temp as scalded the woman)?

How does someone else doing it prove they did nothing wrong?


McDonald's sells billions of cups of coffee. There had been 700 complaints over hot coffee in the previous decade, which translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million, with only a small fraction of the complaints reflecting injuries as severe as Liebeck's. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.[/INDENT]

Well, the number of simultaneous resignations is alleged to be so tiny as not to be worth fixing problematic wording of the Laws.

I'm guessing it's a heck of a lot less than 1 in 24 million. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
30-04-2007, 04:53 PM
Well, the number of simultaneous resignations is alleged to be so tiny as not to be worth fixing problematic wording of the Laws.I'd be surprised if they happen at all.
Can you provide a reference that suggests a simultaneous resignation has actually ever happened.

road runner
30-04-2007, 04:57 PM
1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year.That can't be right, can it? Seems like a helluva lot...

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 05:17 PM
I'd be surprised if they happen at all.
Can you provide a reference that suggests a simultaneous resignation has actually ever happened.

No. All the same, on an earlier post on this thread:


If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?


Interesting question. It's not as prepostrous as it sounds.

Bill Gletsos
30-04-2007, 05:38 PM
No.Exactly. :hand:


All the same, on an earlier post on this thread:


If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?


Interesting question. It's not as prepostrous as it sounds.Irrelevant considering there is apparently no actual case of it ever having happened.

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2007, 05:57 PM
Yes, I was just saying I could see how it could conceivably happen. That doesn't mean there's all that significant a likelihood of it doing so.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2007, 06:08 PM
How does someone else doing it prove they did nothing wrong?

It shows that Macca's were not being unreasonable heating coffee to a very high temp to maximise flavour. A lot of things in life are trade-offs.


I'm guessing it's a heck of a lot less than 1 in 24 million. :owned:

I'd never heard of the possibility till this forum :P

Kevin Bonham
30-04-2007, 06:24 PM
It shows that Macca's were not being unreasonable heating coffee to a very high temp to maximise flavour. A lot of things in life are trade-offs.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether their doing so without certain warnings was justified.


I'd never heard of the possibility till this forum :P

Which rather strengthens the view that although it's conceivable, it is not worth changing the Laws over.

Basil
30-04-2007, 06:38 PM
For example, John Edwards made millions out of junk science and shameless jury manipulation, claiming that a child acquired cerebral palsy because a Caesarian was not done in time. So thanks to this would-be president, far more unnecessary Caesarians are performed, and the "little people" he professes to support can sometimes not even find an ob-gyn because they have been driven out of business by the resulting skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs.
Hi Jon, for reasons that many would find obvious (I'll PM), this line of debate (not new to me) is of great and topical interest.

May I ask broadly (no traps, no silly buggers from my end) whether you are commenting generally & citing this as an opinion held loosely, or commenting because this is a considered and researched conclusion. Thanks.

Do you have any specific links on this guy that you feel I may find of interest.

Cheers
H

Lucena
02-05-2007, 09:26 PM
Well, the number of simultaneous resignations is alleged to be so tiny as not to be worth fixing problematic wording of the Laws. Yet the chances of being scalded by Macca's coffee was also infinitesimal, yet they were hit for millions of punitive damages, which merely increase the cost for future customers.
I'd be surprised if they happen at all.
Can you provide a reference that suggests a simultaneous resignation has actually ever happened.

No.
Exactly.

All the same, on an earlier post on this thread:


If both players resign at same time whose takes precedence?

Interesting question. It's not as prepostrous as it sounds.
Irrelevant considering there is apparently no actual case of it ever having happened.

Bill, I beg to differ! According to "Guinness chess - the records", by Ken Whyld:

In a game during the 1979 Wyoming state championship both players resigned at exactly the same moment, one because he had a hopeless position, the other because of his conscience. While his opponent was out of the room the player had moved, seen it was a mistake and taken it back substituting another.

I'm not sure, but does this merit a :owned:?

road runner
02-05-2007, 09:29 PM
Bill, I beg to differ! According to "Guinness chess - the records", by Ken Whyld:

In a game during the 1979 Wyoming state championship both players resigned at exactly the same moment, one because he had a hopeless position, the other because of his conscience. While his opponent was out of the room the player had moved, seen it was a mistake and taken it back substituting another.That's the one I must have been thinking of then.

Lucena
02-05-2007, 09:40 PM
That's the one I must have been thinking of then.

Ah, I see you referred to it in post 74.

You're a Cure fan, Boris? You must be going to the Zonal then!

Kevin Bonham
02-05-2007, 09:49 PM
In a game during the 1979 Wyoming state championship both players resigned at exactly the same moment, one because he had a hopeless position, the other because of his conscience. While his opponent was out of the room the player had moved, seen it was a mistake and taken it back substituting another.

Does Whyld say what result was declared?

Seems a rather challenging situation to arbitrate, and a different one to what I had in mind as to a circumstance in which simultaneous resigning might occur. If the players immediately showed signs of wanting to agree a draw to resolve the problem I would be inclined to accept that. But if not, let's say A is the player who resigned because he had a bad position, while B is the player who resigned because he cheated. I would argue that the situation of a player resigning because of a bad position after their opponent cheated while they were out of the room is irregular and not precisely covered and that such a resignation need not necessarily stand, unless the player restates that they wish to resign even upon knowing their opponent cheated. However, a player resigning because they cheated normally would stand. Therefore there is some case that the result should be B loses by resignation and A wins, though I still think there is a strong case for calling it a draw.

Of course, while the report says "exactly the same moment", such things are prone to exaggeration; it would be interesting to know more about this.

road runner
02-05-2007, 09:56 PM
Does Whyld say what result was declared?

Seems a rather challenging situation to arbitrate, Not really, the rules seem to dictate that 1-1 is the logical result. :whistle:

Lucena
02-05-2007, 10:05 PM
Does Whyld say what result was declared?

No. :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2007, 12:45 AM
But if not, let's say A is the player who resigned because he had a bad position, while B is the player who resigned because he cheated. I would argue that the situation of a player resigning because of a bad position after their opponent cheated while they were out of the room is irregular and not precisely covered and that such a resignation need not necessarily stand, unless the player restates that they wish to resign even upon knowing their opponent cheated. However, a player resigning because they cheated normally would stand. Therefore there is some case that the result should be B loses by resignation and A wins, though I still think there is a strong case for calling it a draw.

In this case, since B cheated he should get 0. Because he owned up, he should be spared further penalty for bringing chess into disrepute. The arbiter should decide the score of A :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2007, 02:05 AM
Not really, the rules seem to dictate that 1-1 is the logical result. :whistle:No for reasons previously stated.

Bill Gletsos
03-05-2007, 02:30 AM
Of course, while the report says "exactly the same moment", such things are prone to exaggeration;That is my feeling on it too.
I seriously doubt that both players said to the other "I resign" at the same instant.

Basil
03-05-2007, 05:10 AM
That is my feeling on it too.
I seriously doubt that both players said to the other "I resign" at the same instant.
But what if they did? Anyone wanna talk about that? :P
Say for no more than two months bwa ha ha ha

ER
03-05-2007, 11:40 AM
Whyif the arbitrator's (;) mobile goes off in the middle of the tournament, the blighter gets away with it? Unfair to have the players being punished aLL the time!

Denis_Jessop
03-05-2007, 03:51 PM
But what if they did? Anyone wanna talk about that? :P
Say for no more than two months bwa ha ha ha

We could also discuss what happens if the moon hits the Earth (and what the arbiter should do about it) :doh:

DJ

Garvinator
03-05-2007, 03:57 PM
We could also discuss what happens if the moon hits the Earth (and what the arbiter should do about it) :doh:

DJ
Actually Denis, your scenario is much easier to solve. Adjourn each game and move the venue to Venus ;)

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2007, 04:44 PM
We could also discuss what happens if the moon hits the Earth (and what the arbiter should do about it) :doh:
The moon is receding though.:lol:

Kevin Bonham
03-05-2007, 11:00 PM
In this case, since B cheated he should get 0.

Doesn't follow automatically, since the normal penalty for such cheating without resignation on account of it would not be a loss for a first offence. Indeed, it looks like in this case it is only the player's honesty that has caused the cheating to become known. To give a player zero points after cheating and then owning up to it, when in the same situation he would have got one point for cheating and not owning up, and where the simultaneous resignation situation makes it possible to act otherwise, seems rather harsh.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2007, 11:20 AM
Doesn't follow automatically, since the normal penalty for such cheating without resignation on account of it would not be a loss for a first offence.

Why not? Cheating is a very serious wrong. Universities punish it very harshly, and I think chess arbiters should as well.


Indeed, it looks like in this case it is only the player's honesty that has caused the cheating to become known. To give a player zero points after cheating and then owning up to it, when in the same situation he would have got one point for cheating and not owning up, and where the simultaneous resignation situation makes it possible to act otherwise, seems rather harsh.

Actually, I think proven cheating should result in expulsion from the tournament. So the honesty of this player prevents that by limiting the penalty to one game, and is thus generous.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2007, 06:52 PM
Why not? Cheating is a very serious wrong. Universities punish it very harshly, and I think chess arbiters should as well.

Actually, I think proven cheating should result in expulsion from the tournament.

For something like computer-cheating or systematically receiving advice I agree. For making a move, taking it back then playing another I'm not sure. It doesn't seem in the same league in terms of severity to me.

Denis_Jessop
04-05-2007, 08:56 PM
For something like computer-cheating or systematically receiving advice I agree. For making a move, taking it back then playing another I'm not sure. It doesn't seem in the same league in terms of severity to me.

After all, Grandmasters do it though they also say "J'adoube" after the event.:evil:

DJ

Garvinator
04-05-2007, 10:50 PM
After all, Grandmasters do it though they also say "J'adoube" after the event.:evil:

DJ
or claim that fritz etc was set up incorrectly ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
14-05-2007, 05:00 PM
We could also discuss what happens if the moon hits the Earth (and what the arbiter should do about it) :doh:

DJ

It means arbiter did not perform their duty properly.

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2007, 10:05 PM
We could also discuss what happens if the moon hits the Earth (and what the arbiter should do about it) :doh:

That's obvious; the arbiter should enforce touchmove.