PDA

View Full Version : clock not adding increment



Pages : 1 [2]

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:14 PM
Ultimately for a lay person...
I turn up for a tourny
I pay my way
I understand and respect the rules
I have less prize money because I have arbiters I pay to ensure that all is safe and correct
It is a big tourny
THe owner and financial gainer is funnily enough the arbiter...
He is earning quite a bit of money from this...good for him..it is all good for chess
But hang on
there was only one arbiter for SOOOO many?
not good value for money
and arbiters spending much time looking at books for sale?
sorry NOT arbiters..arbiter
ummm it is NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF TENNIS PALYERS TO CHECK THE HEIGHT OF THE NET
It is what we pay money for when wr enter an event
to take away these petty concerns
the bottomline is

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ATBITER TO ENSURE ALL CLOCKSD ARE CORRECTLY SET
that is what entry fees are for...:)

Axiom
12-01-2007, 09:27 PM
If a player were to lose ,say,after only a few minutes, 'on time',due to a mal set or mal functioning clock....would that player be deemed to have lost?(assuming ,naturally,the error was discovered during or within minutes of 'finishing' the game!)

if he would not be deemed to have lost because of the obvious nature of the error(due to the short time elapsed),then in principle,why would it matter if this event occured after an hour or so of play?

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:33 PM
I don't understand why you say you don't know me...we have met..have been introduced even...By your friend Klyall no less
You know my "handle too"
Why do you pretend?

Recherché
12-01-2007, 09:33 PM
The fact that the player that lost on time who set the clock incorrectly should not be at an issue. The arbiter should ensure the clocks are set correctly before the game commences.

The arbiter did ensure the clocks were set correctly. Mr Hacche changed the clock after this was done.

Are you suggesting that the arbiter should have been simultaneously present at all boards immediately before calling the start of the round, checking each clock to be sure they hadn't been fiddled in the last few minutes? I suggest you get Santa Claus to run your next tournament.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 09:37 PM
Winding up the spring is resetting not replacement.

Where do the laws mention a "resetting" of a clock?


There's no argument that the arbiter can (and must, once it is clear there is a problem) reset a clock in this manner while both flags are still up.

Why does the flag fall change things? A flag fall does not automatically finish the game.


Actually at my club this happens too, so I should have been more accurate and limited my comment to weekend tournaments, where I cannot recall any event played with a digital clock where the arbiters did not perform or at least supervise the resetting of clocks. Club games at my club often start at varying times over half an hour or so rather than all at once.

I've played in a few weekenders ni NSW and Victoria and would certainly not be surprised by a player checking the clock or setting if needs be. I can't give you an idea as to the frequency. However at events where there are 30+ boards and only one arbiter (which happened fairly regularly) it is not something which is noteworthy.


In fact I only changed my position (at all) three times, and the second and third of these both only affected a scenario that actually turned out not to apply. The only effective change of mind on my part was from that the decision appeared to be wrong to that the decision was one of a range of possible options, and that was brought about by simply carefully reading and considering the relevant passage in the Laws.

Perhaps you could run through those laws for me in the way which you now hold for them to apply. Along with a synomsis of your present position.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:39 PM
The arbiter is responsible...that is why they pay money..to play chess.
If there are too many players then it is the tournament organisers responsiblilty to ensure enough arbiters.
The players pay an entry fee to ensure a prize fund and a service]

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 09:39 PM
The arbiter did ensure the clocks were set correctly. Mr Hacche changed the clock after this was done.

And what happened between the arbiter originally setting the clock and David setting it up for play? We are not in full possession of the facts but it seems likely that the clock either lost its settings or they were changed by persons unknown.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 09:48 PM
And what happened between the arbiter originally setting the clock and David setting it up for play? We are not in full possession of the facts but it seems likely that the clock either lost its settings or they were changed by persons unknown.

Whether anything happened or not (it has certainly not been established that it did), Mr Hacche took upon himself the responsibility of re-setting the clock, when he should have called the arbiter to set it. In doing so he deprived his opponent of the correct increments, as well as himself.

As I said earlier, I think there's a strong argument to be made that he should have received a loss here regardless of the outcome of the game. The fact that he lost on time is merely poetic justice, if you will.

Axiom
12-01-2007, 09:50 PM
This episode could well be a problem arising from a transition to new digital clocks with increments......perhaps in the past it was easier to confirm that the clocks were set and working correctly,but with the more 'hidden' nature of the settings it is possibly understandable to envisage these sorts of events occuring.

The lesson from this maybe is to underscore and emphasise 'Clock Responsibilty'.ie.
Who is ultimately in the -letter of the law- responsible for confirming correct clock settings/workings?......the answer needed so as to clarify an official poisition ,should the same situation arise in the future.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:51 PM
Poetic Justice..please...

Recherché
12-01-2007, 09:53 PM
If a player were to lose ,say,after only a few minutes, 'on time',due to a mal set or mal functioning clock....would that player be deemed to have lost?(assuming ,naturally,the error was discovered during or within minutes of 'finishing' the game!)

if he would not be deemed to have lost because of the obvious nature of the error(due to the short time elapsed),then in principle,why would it matter if this event occured after an hour or so of play?

It would depend on the other circumstances (how it became mis-set), and, as with many things, on the discretion of the arbiter.

It seems to have been established already that the arbiter was within the laws of chess when he made his decision. Personally I think it is also a fair and right decision, in the circumstances.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 09:54 PM
Whether anything happened or not (it has certainly not been established that it did), Mr Hacche took upon himself the responsibility of re-setting the clock, when he should have called the arbiter to set it. In doing so he deprived his opponent of the correct increments, as well as himself.

As I said earlier, I think there's a strong argument to be made that he should have received a loss here regardless of the outcome of the game. The fact that he lost on time is merely poetic justice, if you will.

That is rubbish. Where is your argument for that based on the laws of chess?

The fact of the matter is that the clock was not keeping time as it should. The arbiter did not ensure that the clock was set up at that board at the start of the game and David took it upon himself to cover for the arbiter not correctly executing his duties. In doing so he did something which is not noteworthy in a tournament with a largish field and an overworked arbiter, he set the clock back to what he believed to be the tournament time control.

Yes he did not do this correctly. However, he should not have been in the position to have had to do this at all. In doing so he made an honest mistake and set both clocks to the same (incorrect) setting.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 09:56 PM
Hang on
has it been established that he set the clock incorrectly?...

Axiom
12-01-2007, 09:58 PM
This episode could well be a problem arising from a transition to new digital clocks with increments......perhaps in the past it was easier to confirm that the clocks were set and working correctly,but with the more 'hidden' nature of the settings it is possibly understandable to envisage these sorts of events occuring.

The lesson from this maybe is to underscore and emphasise 'Clock Responsibilty'.ie.
Who is ultimately in the -letter of the law- responsible for confirming correct clock settings/workings?......the answer needed so as to clarify an official poisition ,should the same situation arise in the future.
...in the end,my guess is that from a logistical and practical viewpoint, it must be the player that has to finally bear this official responsibility.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 09:59 PM
I don't think the current wording of the laws even takes flat batteries into account.

Incidentally, I encountered a clock with a flat battery during one of my games in this tournament. I stopped the clock, called the arbiter, and had a fully functioning, correctly programmed clock within moments.

The draws were up within moments of the previous round finishing. My results were recorded quickly and accurately. We were informed of local facilities (very helpful for me, since I had not played there previously). We were even warned to be watchful that we were getting the correct increments during our games.

I would not like Mischa's assertion that the arbiting was lax to stand unchallenged. In my view it was good.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:00 PM
Hang on
has it been established that he set the clock incorrectly?...

If by "he", you mean Mr Hacche, then yes, this was established long ago. This was established on the day.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 10:00 PM
A player bears OFFICIAL responsibility....
I would want my money back that I paid for arbiters if I have to do the work myself

Mischa
12-01-2007, 10:01 PM
I never said the arbiting was lax...just posed some questions is all...

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:09 PM
That is rubbish. Where is your argument for that based on the laws of chess?

I'm not arguing anything based on the Laws of Chess. People familiar with them (Kevin, for example) have been doing that.

I've been arguing based on what is fair, and what should logically be expected. In pretty much any sport you can name, if you tamper with official equipment, and especially if this affects your opponent in any way, you forfeit the game at the very least.


The arbiter did not ensure that the clock was set up at that board at the start of the game and David took it upon himself to cover for the arbiter not correctly executing his duties.

Not true. I refer you to what I set a few posts earlier. It is not physically possible for the arbiter (or even 10 arbiters) to check the settings on every clock in a 40 board tournament immediately before the start of play.

The clock setting was done shortly before the start of play, beyond that it is up to the players to catch any problems and report them for correction. Same applies to illegal moves, or anything else the arbiter might be needed to rule on or fix.


However, he should not have been in the position to have had to do this at all.

Mr Hacche put himself in that position.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 10:10 PM
Where do the laws mention a "resetting" of a clock?

They don't. It can be inferred from many sections (13.2 and 6.14 among them) that the arbiter is entitled to act in this fashion.


Why does the flag fall change things? A flag fall does not automatically finish the game.

See 6.9 in conjunction with the first sentence of 6.11. If it is discovered mid-game that a clock is not adding increments, then the arbiter might decide, following 6.11, that retro-adjustments for previous moves were not in order, but even if the arbiter takes that view, the arbiter is still compelled to rule that from this point on the increment would apply. After the flag falls, saying "OK, the flag's down, but I'll add the increment from now on" is no longer possible.


I've played in a few weekenders ni NSW and Victoria and would certainly not be surprised by a player checking the clock or setting if needs be. I can't give you an idea as to the frequency. However at events where there are 30+ boards and only one arbiter (which happened fairly regularly) it is not something which is noteworthy.

In this case there were 38 players for one arbiter I believe.


Perhaps you could run through those laws for me in the way which you now hold for them to apply. Along with a synomsis of your present position.

I'll have a go:

The arbiter was compelled to intervene (13.2, 6.14 and probably others) before the flagfall if he knew the clock was functioning incorrectly. However he did not know that until the flag fell.

6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 combined say that a player whose flag falls first has lost the game and the flagfall indicated by the clock is conclusive "in the absence of any evident defect". There was no "evident defect" so the arbiter is compelled to award the game on time unless the arbiter rules the situation "not precisely covered" (Preface). If the arbiter does the latter, the arbiter has a range of possible decisions:

(i) maintain loss of time,
(ii) disregard the flagfall - give player a token amount of time then add increments and continue game,
(iii) add increments and restore all lost time and continue game, etc.

I would not have personally chosen "maintain loss of time" but it is not demonstrably wrong.

As the arbiter's decision was not demonstrably wrong the committee were compelled to accept it.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 10:11 PM
tamper ?
in no other sport are you expected to be responsible for equipment supplied and set by an arbiter....are you?

Axiom
12-01-2007, 10:11 PM
IT WOULD SEEM AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE EVIDENCE, USING POWERS OF LOGIC AND REASON ,IT IS WITH REGRET THAT,I PRONOUCE MR D HACCHE GUILTY! OF (1)ABREGATING HIS CLOCK RESPONSIBILTIES AND (2)WITHDRAWING IN AN UNAUTHORISED MANNER..............To be sentenced at a later date. :)

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:14 PM
I never said the arbiting was lax...just posed some questions is all...

Don't be silly. Questions and vague little leading statements are almost all you've posted in this thread. They are loaded questions. Your writing may be less than proficient, but you still get your meaning across. You strongly implied that you thought the arbiting wasn't up to scratch. In this respect, I believe you are wrong.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 10:15 PM
And the unauthorised changing of the draw

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 10:15 PM
I'm not arguing anything based on the Laws of Chess. People familiar with them (Kevin, for example) have been doing that.

I've been arguing based on what is fair, and what should logically be expected. In pretty much any sport you can name, if you tamper with official equipment, and especially if this affects your opponent in any way, you forfeit the game at the very least.

Again unsubstantiated rubbish.


Not true. I refer you to what I set a few posts earlier. It is not physically possible for the arbiter (or even 10 arbiters) to check the settings on every clock in a 40 board tournament immediately before the start of play.

The clock setting was done shortly before the start of play, beyond that it is up to the players to catch any problems and report them for correction. Same applies to illegal moves, or anything else the arbiter might be needed to rule on or fix.

The arbiters should ensure the clocks are set up correctly prior to the start of play. How they do that is the arbiters problem. At the least the playnig venue needs to be monitored to ensure clock settnig are not changed before the start of round.


Mr Hacche put himself in that position.

Your position is unreasonable as what Hacche did is reasonably common practice. Owing to a shortage of arbiters and and lamentably common practice of people playing blitz on tournament enquipment before the start of rounds.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:16 PM
In this case there were 38 players for one arbiter I believe.

I'm pretty sure that's boards, not players. However the arbiter still set the clocks himself. I watched him walking around doing it.

Mischa
12-01-2007, 10:17 PM
You are NOW saying

the arbiter set the clocks himself????

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:18 PM
Again unsubstantiated rubbish.

Ball tampering in cricket has some pretty serious consequences. If I interfered with the height of the net (somehow) in tennis, I'd be in a whole world of trouble for it. Etc etc.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 10:19 PM
I'm pretty sure that's boards, not players.

Correct. About 70 players still in the event by the end, not sure where I got 38 players from.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2007, 10:20 PM
You are NOW saying

the arbiter set the clocks himself????

The arbiter set all the clocks himself, but the player later reset the clock before the game. It sounds like the scenario suggested by heaviestknight (clock resets if inactive for long enough) may have been the cause of this, rather than blitz.

Recherché
12-01-2007, 10:30 PM
Again, has it been demostrated that the arbiter knew who set the clock at the time of his ruling?

My understanding is that this fact emerged during the initial discussion right after Mr Hacche lost on time.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 10:36 PM
They don't. It can be inferred from many sections (13.2 and 6.14 among them) that the arbiter is entitled to act in this fashion.

Exactly my position with regards the settings of an electronic clock.


See 6.9 in conjunction with the first sentence of 6.11. If it is discovered mid-game that a clock is not adding increments, then the arbiter might decide, following 6.11, that retro-adjustments for previous moves were not in order, but even if the arbiter takes that view, the arbiter is still compelled to rule that from this point on the increment would apply. After the flag falls, saying "OK, the flag's down, but I'll add the increment from now on" is no longer possible.

I think that not adding the time that has been lost due to lost increments is not in order when the arbiter has two ways to determine if all the increments have not been applied. By examining the clock and seeing the settings are incorrect and also by checking the time remaining onthe clock and comparing it with the elapsed time in the round he is able to ascertain very accurately whether all the increments should be applied or not.

Given the time situation and also the wording of rule 6.2 (a)

"When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move."

Therefore the lost increments needs to be factored onto the clock to account for the requirements of 6.2(a). Without them it is not possible to determine if the player has used all the time including the additinoal amount of time per move.


In this case there were 38 players for one arbiter I believe.

There were two arbiters? There were around 30+ boards and ~70 players.


I'll have a go:

The arbiter was compelled to intervene (13.2, 6.14 and probably others) before the flagfall if he knew the clock was functioning incorrectly. However he did not know that until the flag fell.

6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 combined say that a player whose flag falls first has lost the game and the flagfall indicated by the clock is conclusive "in the absence of any evident defect". There was no "evident defect" so the arbiter is compelled to award the game on time unless the arbiter rules the situation "not precisely covered" (Preface). If the arbiter does the latter, the arbiter has a range of possible decisions:

(i) maintain loss of time,
(ii) disregard the flagfall - give player a token amount of time then add increments and continue game,
(iii) add increments and restore all lost time and continue game, etc.

I would not have personally chosen "maintain loss of time" but it is not demonstrably wrong.

As the arbiter's decision was not demonstrably wrong the committee were compelled to accept it.

The wording of 6.2(a) indicates to me that the player must have used the allotted time plus increments. If it is evident that that was not happening due to the calculation fo time remaining on the clock and the time since the start of round, as well as an examination of the clock that revealed that increments were not being applied, then the arbiter should not rule that the requirements of 6.2 (a) have been satisfied.

Also your argument hinges no your definition of evident defect. I thnik a clock which can be conclusively shown to have not been adding increments is evidently defective. As I have argued already the settings are a part of the clock and if they have been set incorrectly then the clock contains a defect which is evident by the time remaining and an examination of the clock. (Lack of triangle and examination of settings as was done soon after the conclusion of play).

Further to this the arbiter suspected the clock was not incrementing before the game concluded and there was no reason to award a win on time. A flag fall is simply a trigger for the arbiter to decide on 6.2 and not a completion of game in itself.

Rincewind
12-01-2007, 10:44 PM
Ball tampering in cricket has some pretty serious consequences. If I interfered with the height of the net (somehow) in tennis, I'd be in a whole world of trouble for it. Etc etc.

The point is in weekend tournaments in Australia players play blitz with tournament clocks. Also clocks can reset themselves if left for long enough. It is not uncommon for players to check or reset clocks in weekenders particularly when there are many boards and few arbiters.

To use a loaded term like tampering and suggesting by doing so that Hacche's lose was serving the ends of justice does nothing but underline your partisan and ill-informed position on the matter.

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2007, 11:45 PM
To use a loaded term like tampering and suggesting by doing so that Hacche's lose was serving the ends of justice does nothing but underline your partisan and ill-informed position on the matter.Yes, there is nothing partisan about Misha's posts. :hand:

Mischa
12-01-2007, 11:50 PM
which post would that be Bill?

Bill Gletsos
12-01-2007, 11:59 PM
which post would that be Bill?I think Recherché summed things up nicely in posts #273 and http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=138857&postcount=4.

Mischa
13-01-2007, 12:06 AM
Hey just stop for a minute
In all fairness to me I posted on behalf of DH
I convinced him then to post on his own behalf.
I have not attacked the arbiter at all just asked questions
I have NEVER been personal unlike you and Bill
You wrongly claimed not to know me but now you do???
I am called Partisan but the only time you post is in defience of ....
i was reluctant to even name the arbiter
in one post I even defended the arbiter

Phil Bourke
13-01-2007, 12:07 AM
What vivid imaginations are running amok with this issue, comparing what happened to ball tampering etc is ridiculous.
Basically, the players sat down to start their game and found that the clock wasn't correctly set, for whatever reason. One player then chose to set the clock for the game, unfortunately, despite all the good intentions, he set it incorrectly. Neither player detected this error and played out their game with what the clock was showing them, even the scoresheets depicted earlier prove that at least one of the players was keeping a close eye on the amount of time left. By the time the error was discovered, the players had reached a result in their game. What does the arbiter do? I at first thought that he may have corrected the clock and allowed the game to continue. But that then opens up a contention that one or both players may have played better moves during the frantic final few minutes, so how to find a point where both players would be happy to continue from? Probably not achievable. Then throw in the possibility of playing the game from scratch. Not really feasible, with the scheduling of weekend tournaments usually tight to begin with, the arbiter would be reluctant to allow this to happen as the next round would be delayed by 2-3 hours minimum. So, what choices are left, probably the one reached by the arbiter, let the game result stand as decided, even though it had been played under the wrong time control, is the only choice that made sense in light of what happened, and the circumstances it occurred under. Apparently this only left one aggrieved party, but in reality how can a referee/arbiter ever rule to the satisfaction of both the winner and the loser ;)
Probably the point here to be noted is, if your clock is incorrectly set and if you aren't absolutely sure of how to set the clock, then call the arbiter to do it for you. Plus if you allow your opponent to reset a clock, make damn sure that it is operating properly well before you get to the end of the game. This can be done with a 30 sec increment, by playing your first 3-4 moves fairly quickly and noting if your clock goes up to 1:31.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 12:59 AM
I don't think the current wording of the laws even takes flat batteries into account. As Bill mentions, it hasn't changed since the analogue clock days.Correct. however the rules did consider that a clock that stopped moving was covered by the article. Why it stopped was immaterial be it due to breakdown or the fact that it hadnt been sufficiently wound to start with.

It is interesting to note that a FIDE Rules Commission interpretation of 1958 when asked for more exact definitions of what constitutes evident defects of a clock replied by referring back to what was then and today essentially the Preface to the Laws.
Note in 1980 the equivalent of what is today Article 6.11 was Article 14.5.

Article 14.5 stated: Every indication given by a clock or its apparatus is considered as conclusive in the absence of evident defects. The player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it.

By the mid to late 1980's the Artilce had become Artvile 12.4 and was much longer.

Artilce 12.4 stated: ]Every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects. A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it, but not later than immediately after his flag has fallen at the time control. A clock with an obvious defect should be repleaced etc
The remainder of 12.4 relates to adjusting the times on the clock.

FWIW it would seem from the above that FIDE was stating that a claim by a player that the clock was defective at some stage after his flag fell but not immediately after his flag fell was irrelevant.

The fact that FIDE has since removed these words from the Article would not necessarily negate their intent.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 01:38 AM
I think that not adding the time that has been lost due to lost increments is not in order when the arbiter has two ways to determine if all the increments have not been applied. By examining the clock and seeing the settings are incorrect and also by checking the time remaining onthe clock and comparing it with the elapsed time in the round he is able to ascertain very accurately whether all the increments should be applied or not.

Given the time situation and also the wording of rule 6.2 (a)

"When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move."

Therefore the lost increments needs to be factored onto the clock to account for the requirements of 6.2(a). Without them it is not possible to determine if the player has used all the time including the additinoal amount of time per move.

But by the same token, what happens (in your view) if it is discovered mid-game that a clock has been adding too much increment, and that on determining the correct time it becomes clear that a player has actually used up enough that their flag would have fallen had the clock been functioning properly. Does the player then lose on time?


The wording of 6.2(a) indicates to me that the player must have used the allotted time plus increments.

But, as I've already indicated, 6.11 overrides 6.2 by requiring that the indications given by the clock are conclusive in the absence of "evident defect". Unless there is an "evident defect", or the arbiter invokes the Preface, the arbiter is not entitled to take into account calculations suggesting the player can't have possibly lost on time - the flagfall shown on the clock is final.


I thnik a clock which can be conclusively shown to have not been adding increments is evidently defective.

Would it be safe to assume, us having both stated our arguments for and against this view a number of times, that the chance of us reaching agreement on this is zero? :D

(I say this as an alternative to the cliche "agree to disagree", which I find somehow ... disagreeable! ;) )


Further to this the arbiter suspected the clock was not incrementing before the game concluded and there was no reason to award a win on time.

The arbiter did not really suspect this as such. He had been alerted to the possibility, and did not believe it to be true, but intended to investigate after the next clock press.

Garvinator
13-01-2007, 01:43 AM
Correct. however the rules did consider that a clock that stopped moving was covered by the article. Why it stopped was immaterial be it due to breakdown or the fact that it hadnt been sufficiently wound to start with.

It is interesting to note that a FIDE Rules Commission interpretation of 1958 when asked for more exact definitions of what constitutes evident defects of a clock replied by referring back to what was then and today essentially the Preface to the Laws.
Note in 1980 the equivalent of what is today Article 6.11 was Article 14.5.

Article 14.5 stated: Every indication given by a clock or its apparatus is considered as conclusive in the absence of evident defects. The player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it.

By the mid to late 1980's the Artilce had become Artvile 12.4 and was much longer.

Artilce 12.4 stated: ]Every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects. A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it, but not later than immediately after his flag has fallen at the time control. A clock with an obvious defect should be repleaced etc
The remainder of 12.4 relates to adjusting the times on the clock.

FWIW it would seem from the above that FIDE was stating that a claim by a player that the clock was defective at some stage after his flag fell but not immediately after his flag fell was irrelevant.

The fact that FIDE has since removed these words from the Article would not necessarily negate their intent.
This is one area that I have found most difficult. Knowledge of past history of how laws of chess came into being.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 01:54 AM
Correct. however the rules did consider that a clock that stopped moving was covered by the article.

Why it stopped was immaterial be it due to breakdown or the fact that it hadnt been sufficiently wound to start with.

In that case by analogy flat batteries in an electronic clock would also be covered by the rule.


It is interesting to note that a FIDE Rules Commission interpretation of 1958 when asked for more exact definitions of what constitutes evident defects of a clock replied by referring back to what was then and today essentially the Preface to the Laws.

Meaning that it is a matter for the arbiter to decide, essentially.


Note in 1980 the equivalent of what is today Article 6.11 was Article 14.5.

Article 14.5 stated: Every indication given by a clock or its apparatus is considered as conclusive in the absence of evident defects. The player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it.

By the mid to late 1980's the Artilce had become Artvile 12.4 and was much longer.

Artilce 12.4 stated: ]Every indication given by a clock is considered to be conclusive in the absence of evident defects. A player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it, but not later than immediately after his flag has fallen at the time control. A clock with an obvious defect should be repleaced etc
The remainder of 12.4 relates to adjusting the times on the clock.

FWIW it would seem from the above that FIDE was stating that a claim by a player that the clock was defective at some stage after his flag fell but not immediately after his flag fell was irrelevant.

The fact that FIDE has since removed these words from the Article would not necessarily negate their intent.

It is interesting that the onus is placed on the player to make claims of defects, when this is not now in (or at least not explicit in) the relevant Law.

Also I notice that the reference to a flag fall is specific to "at the time control". I wonder why it is specific to that rather than referring to a flag fall more generally (or is it intended to apply to all flag falls?)

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 02:00 AM
I have not attacked the arbiter at all just asked questions

"Just asking questions" where a certain answer would reflect negatively on the person's reputation is a very common form of insinuation - indeed such claims are often received as statements of fact by readers even when framed as a "question". Whether or not that was your intent, a few of your "questions" were bordering on defamatory as a result.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 07:53 AM
But by the same token, what happens (in your view) if it is discovered mid-game that a clock has been adding too much increment, and that on determining the correct time it becomes clear that a player has actually used up enough that their flag would have fallen had the clock been functioning properly. Does the player then lose on time?

It would depend on the specific circumstances but in general no. 6.2(a) says that after a flagfall the arbiter then awards the game as won on time if the player suffering a flag fall has not completed the required number of moves. If too much time is being awarded then it is just a question of applying 6.11 where the arbiter decides and adjusts the clocks according.


But, as I've already indicated, 6.11 overrides 6.2 by requiring that the indications given by the clock are conclusive in the absence of "evident defect". Unless there is an "evident defect", or the arbiter invokes the Preface, the arbiter is not entitled to take into account calculations suggesting the player can't have possibly lost on time - the flagfall shown on the clock is final.

This all hinges no a semantic point of what constitutes an evident defect. From the ODE...

evident - clearly seen or understood, obvious
defect - a shortcoming, imperfection or lack

I again argue that incorrectly setting of the clock is a shortcoming, imperfection and lack as it leads to the clock NOT being able to be used to accurately determine if the requirements of 6.2(a) have been fulfulled. As previusly argued the settings are a part of the clock in the same way that the batteries are a part of the clock or the spring is a part of an analogue clock.

Secondly the imperfection can be clearly seen and understood and is obvious by at least 3 different means. The time calculation method which is clearly understood. Also I'm told the absence of a triangle on the clock display is also obvious to one familiar with the clock (as the arbiter should be) and a quick examination of the clock settings will also make it clear that there was a shortcoming with the time recording for the game.

Therefore I thnik your semantic argument that 6.11 does not apply is unsubstantiated and therefore there is no need to appeal to the preface in this instance.


Would it be safe to assume, us having both stated our arguments for and against this view a number of times, that the chance of us reaching agreement on this is zero? :D

(I say this as an alternative to the cliche "agree to disagree", which I find somehow ... disagreeable! ;) )

I agree except that I would add that you are clearly wrong in saying that 6.11 does not apply for sematic reasons. The incorrect setting of the clock as in this instance is an evident defect as I outline in this post above.


The arbiter did not really suspect this as such. He had been alerted to the possibility, and did not believe it to be true, but intended to investigate after the next clock press.

I would say the fact that he was investigating it is reason enough to say that he did suspect it might be true. He could have quickly confirmed the theory immediately (I'm told) by just looking at the clock and noticing that the Fischer increment indicator was absent (i.e. no need to wait for a clock press). He could have also determined immediately by looking at the time remaining, number of moves made and realise that the total game is short by 25 minutes. Both of these are clearly seen or understood and obvious to one familiar with the time control and the clock in question.

As soon as the flag fell he was asked by one player to rule on a win on time. In possession of the facts that the arbiter was at that time I believe 6.2(a) was obviously not fulfilled and therefore the win on time claim should have been rejected. The arbiter should have then reset the clock to enable a full and correct time keeping of the game according the the published allotted time and increment and the game should continued from that point.

Phil Bourke
13-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Secondly the imperfection can be clearly seen and understood and is obvious by at least 3 different means. The time calculation method which is clearly understood. Also I'm told the absence of a triangle on the clock display is also obvious to one familiar with the clock (as the arbiter should be) and a quick examination of the clock settings will also make it clear that there was a shortcoming with the time recording for the game.

Not quite that easy, if the clock was set in mode 23 to 1:30:30 with 0:00 increments, the triangle still appears as it would if set to 1:30:00 with 0:30 increments.
This is easy enough done, as when you set the clock in mode 23, the first display sets the time in two stages, firstly hours and minutes are displayed then the seconds. This starting time must be set for both players before setting the amount of increment for both players. Once you have done it thirty or fourty times, it will seem straightforward. :D

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 11:51 AM
It would depend on the specific circumstances but in general no. 6.2(a) says that after a flagfall the arbiter then awards the game as won on time if the player suffering a flag fall has not completed the required number of moves.Actually 6.2(a) says no such thing.
Artile 6.2(a) says: When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

The Article you are interested in is 6.10: Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 11:55 AM
Actually 6.2(a) says no such thing.
Artile 6.2(a) says: When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

The Article you are interested in is 6.10: Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

6.3 says "Each time display has a `flag`. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked."

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 11:58 AM
6.3 says "Each time display has a `flag`. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked."Yes but you never mentioned 6.3.

You claimed that 6.2(a) says that after a flagfall the arbiter then awards the game as won on time if the player suffering a flag fall has not completed the required number of moves.

That is not correct.

In fact 6.2 and 6.3 make no mention of awarding a win to the player whose opponent has lost on time.

That is only mentioned in Article 6.10.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 12:28 PM
Yes but you never mentioned 6.3.

You claimed that 6.2(a) says that after a flagfall the arbiter then awards the game as won on time if the player suffering a flag fall has not completed the required number of moves.

That is not correct.

In fact 6.2 and 6.3 make no mention of awarding a win to the player whose opponent has lost on time.

That is only mentioned in Article 6.10.

Paraphrasing

6.2(a) says a player must have completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

6.3 says after a flag fall 6.2 must be checked.

6.10 says that a the game is lost if a player hasn't completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

It seems to me that 6.2 and 6.3 talk about what the arbiter must do and 6.10 presecribe what is the penalty for a player who doesn't make the required number of moves in the allocated time.

In this case the player had not been used the allocated time because the clock was not correctly adding the increments and therefore 6.10 does not come into it. The arbiter on witnessing or being claimed by a player that they had won on tmie should have checked the requiremnts of 6.2(a) and a correct assessment of that is that 6.2(a) had not been fulfilled.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 12:29 PM
Not quite that easy, if the clock was set in mode 23 to 1:30:30 with 0:00 increments, the triangle still appears as it would if set to 1:30:00 with 0:30 increments.
This is easy enough done, as when you set the clock in mode 23, the first display sets the time in two stages, firstly hours and minutes are displayed then the seconds. This starting time must be set for both players before setting the amount of increment for both players. Once you have done it thirty or fourty times, it will seem straightforward. :D

Thanks for that Phil. Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that the triangle was being displayed. Then the arbiter only had 2 methods of determining that the clock had not been correctly set.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 12:36 PM
Paraphrasing

6.2(a) says a player must have completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

6.3 says after a flag fall 6.2 must be checked.

6.10 says that a the game is lost if a player hasn't completed the required number of moves in the allotted time.

It seems to me that 6.2 and 6.3 talk about what the arbiter must do and 6.10 presecribe what is the penalty for a player who doesn't make the required number of moves in the allocated time.

In this case the player had not been used the allocated time because the clock was not correctly adding the increments and therefore 6.10 does not come into it. The arbiter on witnessing or being claimed by a player that they had won on tmie should have checked the requiremnts of 6.2(a) and a correct assessment of that is that 6.2(a) had not been fulfilled.You can paraphrase all you like.
You claimed 6.2 said something that it does not say.

Only 6.10 talks about a player losing on time.

All that said I do agree that before awarding the win on time in accordance with 6.10 the arbiter shoud have determined if the player exceed his allotted time.

I already stated this regarding 6.10 back in post #59 http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=137942&postcount=59

Phil Bourke
13-01-2007, 12:40 PM
I had always wondered what Mum meant when she said, "The Devil is in the details."
I am starting to understand what she meant.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 12:56 PM
You can paraphrase all you like.
You claimed 6.2 said something that it does not say.

Only 6.10 talks about a player losing on time.

All that said I do agree that before awarding the win on time in accordance with 6.10 the arbiter shoud have determined if the player exceed his allotted time.

I already stated this regarding 6.10 back in post #59 http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=137942&postcount=59

Whether I said 6.2 or 6.3 is irrelevent Bill as I am interested what the laws of chess say should happen. 6.2/6.3 even follow on from one another I posted the wrong number.

6.3 is clearly relevent as it says.

Each time display has a `flag`. Immediately after a flag falls, the requirements of Article 6.2(a) must be checked.

6.3 (and therefore 6.2(a)) are clearly relevent when adjudicating on a win on time claim. We seem to agree on that at any rate.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 01:03 PM
I had always wondered what Mum meant when she said, "The Devil is in the details."
I am starting to understand what she meant.

The detail is definitely important but I think in this case the argument boils down to what constitutes a evident defect in this case. If the clock has not been adding increments and that fact is obvious or can be simply reasoned then I believe that is an evident defect.

I don't have access to a DGT 2000 presently and appreciate the clarification as to their operation. At present we don't know if a the triangle was being displayed or not we can assume for the moment that it was.

Incidentally, it is a pity the DGT programmers did not forsee that the triangle might convey interesting information in this scenario and prevented their clocks from being set to Fischer mode with a 0 second increment. I feel it would have prevented a lot of problems. Not only in this case but may others besides.

1min_grandmaster
13-01-2007, 01:12 PM
Not quite that easy, if the clock was set in mode 23 to 1:30:30 with 0:00 increments, the triangle still appears as it would if set to 1:30:00 with 0:30 increments.

Correct. This shows that the appearance of a triangle does not prove that the players are receiving increments.

Also, I have played many players who often (and some very often) do not press their clock, even when I hint to them to do so by pointing at the clock. I have seen it happen often that both players will play many moves where neither player hits the clock. In this case, neither player receives the increments. Players also often do not record the moves correctly and skip many moves, and the clocks do not necessarily start at the advertised round start time.

Therefore, using the combined evidence of the number of moves played, the time left on the players clocks, and the starting time of the round, it cannot necessarily be proven that the clock is or is not adding increments.

Thus, the only real way to determine if the clock is on the correct setting is to examine the clock by stopping it.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 01:32 PM
The following is from the April 2006 Arbiters Notebook column by Geurt Gjissen chairman of the FIDE Rules Commision published on www.chesscafe.com.



Question Dear Mr. Gijssen, I would like your advice on a particular incident.
The arbiter forgot to check that the clocks were properly set on Fischer mode, with 30 seconds increment per move. This caused some players to lose on time in winning positions; while in other games, players who were losing, refused to continue playing, claiming that the clock error caused them to blunder in time trouble, and asked to replay the game. In my opinion, since both players played under the same conditions, there are no grounds for a replay. The only rule that seems to address this situation is 6.11, but the players contend this only applies to a defective clock and not the arbiter’s error in setting the clocks. I await your reply. Best Regards, Patrick Li Ying
(Mauritius)
AnswerThe players are correct that an improper clock setting cannot be considered as a defect. There is only one Article that deals with incorrect clock settings, Article B4 of the Rules of Rapidplay:
Once each player has completed three moves, no claim can be made regarding incorrect piece placement, orientation of the chessboard or clock setting.

In case of reverse king and queen placement castling with this king is not allowed.

If a read this Article in combination with Article B2 of the Rules of Rapidplay, then it is clear that an incorrect clock setting, in normal games, can be claimed while the game is in progress:

Play shall be governed by the FIDE Laws of Chess, except where they are overridden by the following Laws of Rapidplay,

We probably have to add something about wrong clock settings to the Laws
of Chess. In which case, Article 7 would be the appropriate place to do so.
Therefore Geurt's unequivocal statement that The players are correct that an improper clock setting cannot be considered as a defect puts paid to the notion by some people that an incorrect clock setting is considered an evident defect under Article 6.11.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 01:33 PM
Also, I have played many players who often (and some very often) do not press their clock, even when I hint to them to do so by pointing at the clock. I have seen it happen often that both players will play many moves where neither player hits the clock. In this case, neither player receives the increments. Players also often do not record the moves correctly and skip many moves, and the clocks do not necessarily start at the advertised round start time.

Therefore, using the combined evidence of the number of moves played, the time left on the players clocks, and the starting time of the round, it cannot necessarily be proven that the clock is or is not adding increments.

Thus, the only real way to determine if the clock is on the correct setting is to examine the clock by stopping it.

While your argument is deductively sound. The magnitude of the difference (25 minutes) can safely discount the round starting time as the problem. I have never seen players start their game 25 minutes BEFORE the scheduled start time.

With regard non-clocking, if that was the cause of the lack of increments then it is most likely that the player who is shortest of time was the one who forgot to press. This player is a very experience player of a reasonably high level. I think forgetting to clock is unlikely. Especially considering that his scoresheet shows he was recording the time at several points throughout the game. He may have missed clocking once or twice but not enough moves to prevent the arbiter from cnocluding there was something wrong witht he clock.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 01:35 PM
This would seem to put paid to the notion by some people that an incorrect clock setting is considered an evident defect under Article 6.11.

No it only proves that it is the opinion of one person in that particular case.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 01:37 PM
No it only proves that it is the opinion of one person in that particular case.As chairman of the FIDE Rules Commision his opinion carries more weight than yours or mine.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 01:46 PM
As chairman of the FIDE Rules Commision his opinion carries more weight than yours or mine.

I'm interested in logical argument andnot appeals to authority. As Guert is unlikely to defend his position here I see no point in arguing with him other than to note that he makes no case for assuming that particular interpretation.

Also he is not claiming to be speaking ex cathedra at any stage we will assume that his is capable of mistake. Especially cnosidering he was not so sure when commenting on the decision of GM Averbakh in the Ehlvest-Radjabov game.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 02:18 PM
I'm interested in logical argument andnot appeals to authority.Especially when they dont agree with you. :hand:

As Guert is unlikely to defend his position here I see no point in arguing with him other than to note that he makes no case for assuming that particular interpretation.There were no ands, ifs or buts in his statement.
The Chairman of the Rules Commision and an arbiter as experienced as Geurt would know what constitutes an evident defect under Article 6.11.

Also he is not claiming to be speaking ex cathedra at any stage we will assume that his is capable of mistake. Especially cnosidering he was not so sure when commenting on the decision of GM Averbakh in the Ehlvest-Radjabov game.No doubt Geurt is allowed to change his mind after a number of years.

After all his comments regarding the Ehlvest-Radjabov game which was a tie-break blitz game as part of the FIDE 2001 World Championship Knockout played under special rules not standard blitz rules was made back in November 2001.

His comments I quoted were made in April 2006.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 02:34 PM
There were no ands, ifs or buts in his statement.

There was also no justification as to why he came to that opinion.


No doubt Geurt is allowed to change his mind after a number of years.

His comments I quoted were made in April 2006.

Indeed perhaps he has changed his mind again since last April.

Let's assume for the moment Guert's opinion is correct and test it with some scenarios...

___

In a weekender you have a a board where black has shown up at the start of play but white has not. The clock has been set by the arbiter but incorrectly to 30 minutes no increment insteand of 1:30 no increment according to the published allotment for this event. Black does not notice this mistake starts the clock and leaves the board to look at other games.

After 35 minutes the white player shows up black returns to the board they sit down and shake hands when Black announces. Thank you, you have lost on time.

The arbiter is summoned but without an evident defect (by Guerts definition) in the clock his hands are tied even though he knows 90 minutes could not have possibly lapsed. The clock flag has fallen and his hands are tied.

___

Another scenario is the time control is 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30 minutes for the remainder of the game. The clock is incorrectly programed to G90 + 3 minutes for the remainder. Now this time a player has make 40 moves and leaves the table to collect his thought for the end game (ie visit the gents). Meantmie black makes his 40th move and before white returns agani he is lost on time.

__

I would argue that in all these cases the clock is clearly defective. That is it has a shortcoming which prevents it from accurately recording how much time a player has used and therefore prevents the arbiter from adjudicating on 6.2(a). The fact that Guert's opinion on these case would seem to be the same indicates to me that his interpretation leads to patently unjust decisions.

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 03:31 PM
There was also no justification as to why he came to that opinion.So what?
Oh thats right.
You just dont like his view because it does not agree with your own. :hand:

Indeed perhaps he has changed his mind again since last April.No evidence to support this.

Let's assume for the moment Guert's opinion is correct and test it with some scenarios...

___

In a weekender you have a a board where black has shown up at the start of play but white has not. The clock has been set by the arbiter but incorrectly to 30 minutes no increment insteand of 1:30 no increment according to the published allotment for this event. Black does not notice this mistake starts the clock and leaves the board to look at other games.

After 35 minutes the white player shows up black returns to the board they sit down and shake hands when Black announces. Thank you, you have lost on time.

The arbiter is summoned but without an evident defect (by Guerts definition) in the clock his hands are tied even though he knows 90 minutes could not have possibly lapsed. The clock flag has fallen and his hands are tied.

___

Another scenario is the time control is 40 moves in 90 minutes plus 30 minutes for the remainder of the game. The clock is incorrectly programed to G90 + 3 minutes for the remainder. Now this time a player has make 40 moves and leaves the table to collect his thought for the end game (ie visit the gents). Meantmie black makes his 40th move and before white returns agani he is lost on time.

__

I would argue that in all these cases the clock is clearly defective. That is it has a shortcoming which prevents it from accurately recording how much time a player has used and therefore prevents the arbiter from adjudicating on 6.2(a). The fact that Guert's opinion on these case would seem to be the same indicates to me that his interpretation leads to patently unjust decisions.You can argue all you like that the clock is defective.
Geurt and others dont believe that an incorrect clock setting constitutes an evident defect.

As Guert notes they will probably need to add a section on incorrect clock setting to the rules but under Article 7: Irregularities not Article 6.11.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 03:40 PM
It would depend on the specific circumstances but in general no. 6.2(a) says that after a flagfall the arbiter then awards the game as won on time if the player suffering a flag fall has not completed the required number of moves. If too much time is being awarded then it is just a question of applying 6.11 where the arbiter decides and adjusts the clocks according.

But what happens, in your view, if the correct adjustment then leaves one player with less than zero time.


I again argue that incorrectly setting of the clock is a shortcoming, imperfection and lack as it leads to the clock NOT being able to be used to accurately determine if the requirements of 6.2(a) have been fulfulled.

And I argue that it is not a shortcoming, imperfection or lack of the clock but of its settings. The clock had no shortcomings or imperfections and was lacking nothing essential to its function; it had just been incorrectly set.


As previusly argued the settings are a part of the clock in the same way that the batteries are a part of the clock or the spring is a part of an analogue clock.

I don't agree with this. I agree that on a very technical level all these things are just physical differences in the state of the clock from the state in which it is meant to be for that game, but if FIDE had intended that to be the test they could have easily specified that when asked to define "defective" instead of refusing to define it (as discussed by Bill above).


I would say the fact that he was investigating it is reason enough to say that he did suspect it might be true.

I agree with this, but suspecting something might be true and suspecting something is true are not the same thing. To be more precise, he incorrectly thought the probability of it being true was present but low.

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 03:53 PM
Let's assume for the moment Guert's opinion is correct and test it with some scenarios...

Geurt actually says only "it is clear that an incorrect clock setting, in normal games, can be claimed while the game is in progress:"

You are interpreting him as saying that an incorrect clock setting cannot under any circumstances be claimed after flagfall, but he doesn't actually say that. What he is doing is arguing by analogy from the right to claim incorrect clock settings during the first few moves of a rapidplay, to the right to claim incorrect clock settings at any stage during the game for a normal game.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 05:18 PM
But what happens, in your view, if the correct adjustment then leaves one player with less than zero time.

It would depend on the specifics. If no flag fall had yet occurred and there is no evidence of any wrong-doing by either play I doubt I would award the game as lost on time. Some time would remain on both clocks.


And I argue that it is not a shortcoming, imperfection or lack of the clock but of its settings. The clock had no shortcomings or imperfections and was lacking nothing essential to its function; it had just been incorrectly set.

I see no reason for you to introduce the dichotomy of a clock and its settings. Or if you do why you don't have the same dichotomy for a clock and it batteries, its mechanical comonents, its' springs, its screws and so on ad infinitum.


I don't agree with this. I agree that on a very technical level all these things are just physical differences in the state of the clock from the state in which it is meant to be for that game, but if FIDE had intended that to be the test they could have easily specified that when asked to define "defective" instead of refusing to define it (as discussed by Bill above).

You are inferring something into the meaning of the omission of a definition of defective which is not present. They don;t define most words used in the laws. Defective is another which is not defined because they intend it to have its everyday meaning and not a jargonistic meaning. As such the ODE definition should provide us enough scope to discuss semantics.


I agree with this, but suspecting something might be true and suspecting something is true are not the same thing. To be more precise, he incorrectly thought the probability of it being true was present but low.

I believe if the suspicion was sufficient to go over to examin the game it was also sufficient to examine his watch and calculate that the clock was short to the tune of 25 minutes. The suspicion would then have been sufficient to forestall awarding the win on time claim until after he had examined the settings of the clock.

Rincewind
13-01-2007, 05:19 PM
You are interpreting him as saying that an incorrect clock setting cannot under any circumstances be claimed after flagfall, but he doesn't actually say that.

Cool then I don't have a problem with him.

antichrist
13-01-2007, 06:15 PM
My understanding is that this fact emerged during the initial discussion right after Mr Hacche lost on time.


Recherche, stick to your guns, but have probably got sick of them already. It was pure and simple, just as a person who resets the board (if dropped peices) takes responsiblility then the person who resets the clock is responsible if they disadvantage themselves.

Basil
13-01-2007, 06:23 PM
Recherche, stick to your guns, but have probably got sick of them already. It was pure and simple, just as a person who resets the board (if dropped peices) takes responsiblility then the person who resets the clock is responsible if they disadvantage themselves.
Are you sure that if the pieces are dropped, they aren't classified as faulty :eek:

Bill Gletsos
13-01-2007, 06:25 PM
Are you sure that if the pieces are dropped, they aren't classified as faulty :eek:I've see a game that continued after the accidental decapitation of a prelate. ;)

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2007, 06:25 PM
It would depend on the specifics. If no flag fall had yet occurred and there is no evidence of any wrong-doing by either play I doubt I would award the game as lost on time. Some time would remain on both clocks.

That is what I would do too. But it makes the point that you don't have to strictly reset the clocks to the exact amount of time that has elapsed. By the same token, a referee might decide not to give the players back all the time they were missing in the case of the clock not incrementing, but simply to get the game going again with some time on each clock plus increment. A possible reason for this is that the setting error has caused the players to play faster than they otherwise would have, and therefore giving them all the time back will leave them with more time for the remainder of that game than they would usually have, or need, for such a position.


I see no reason for you to introduce the dichotomy of a clock and its settings.

As Gijssen points out the dichotomy is already present in the Laws because it is present in rapidplay, where the player loses the right to make a claim concerning clock setting after three moves, but is still protected under 6.11 should the clock spontaneously combust because of a workmanship defect.


You are inferring something into the meaning of the omission of a definition of defective which is not present. They don;t define most words used in the laws. Defective is another which is not defined because they intend it to have its everyday meaning and not a jargonistic meaning. As such the ODE definition should provide us enough scope to discuss semantics.

Software/hardware differences seem everyday enough to me. "The thing isn't defective, you just set it wrong" sounds far more everyday than dredging up von Neumann.


I believe if the suspicion was sufficient to go over to examin the game it was also sufficient to examine his watch and calculate that the clock was short to the tune of 25 minutes.

Sure, but he only had 25 seconds to reach this conclusion while the game was "live".


The suspicion would then have been sufficient to forestall awarding the win on time claim until after he had examined the settings of the clock.

He was aware the clock had been incorrectly set when awarding the win.

antichrist
13-01-2007, 06:35 PM
I've see a game that continued after the accidental decapitation of a prelate. ;)

As I have already mentioned too many times previously, in Agulto Vs Gett SEC game (or someone from Germany), without moves being recorded (last five minutes) two prelates (Pell and Jansen from same team) were put back on board on one witnesses say so.

And that was from a top arbiting team?? And both mistakes were made by the player whose peices were off the board!

Kerry Stead
13-01-2007, 07:45 PM
Silly question, but did the players actually playing the game make any mention of the clock when Hacche's flag fell (other than the obligatory 'you've lost on time' or similar), or was the ruling and investigation all arbiter-driven?

arosar
13-01-2007, 07:55 PM
The detail is definitely important but I think in this case the argument boils down to what constitutes a evident defect in this case. If the clock has not been adding increments and that fact is obvious or can be simply reasoned then I believe that is an evident defect.

Rincey, mate, normally you're very good. But here, your position is very odd and unconvincing.

And to those in the tournament: knowing that Hacche adjusted the clock, how do we know he set it wrong?

AR

antichrist
13-01-2007, 07:58 PM
Rincey, mate, normally you're very good. But here, your position is very odd and unconvincing.

And to those in the tournament: knowing that Hacche adjusted the clock, how do we know he set it wrong?

AR

If he was the last to set it as it seems then he must have set it wrong as later checking confirmed that it was not faulty. I think he just forgot that it was not guillotine.

RW's post is gobblegork if ever there was, you never get rubbish like that from me.

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 07:20 PM
As Gijssen points out the dichotomy is already present in the Laws because it is present in rapidplay, where the player loses the right to make a claim concerning clock setting after three moves, but is still protected under 6.11 should the clock spontaneously combust because of a workmanship defect.

I don't think from the wording of B4 it can be argued that a dichotomy of clocks and settings exists in the aws. For starters, App B does ot apply to classical chess. But discounting that, because the laws talk specifically in that case about the setting of the clock that when they speak solely of a clock having an evident defect that implies the not include the settings.


Software/hardware differences seem everyday enough to me. "The thing isn't defective, you just set it wrong" sounds far more everyday than dredging up von Neumann.

I think you'll find Von Neumann architecture is still very relevent in computing today.


Sure, but he only had 25 seconds to reach this conclusion while the game was "live".

The game is "live" until he decides on the win on time claim. So there was no time limit on the calculation.


He was aware the clock had been incorrectly set when awarding the win.

Then the mis set clock was clearly evident. The only question then is "was it defective?" Do you agree?

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 07:30 PM
And to those in the tournament: knowing that Hacche adjusted the clock, how do we know he set it wrong?

I'm not sure of David's position on the matter but the current working assumption for my position is that the clock was set incorrectly by David and this was shown by a post motem examniation of the clock which showed the clock to be set to 1:00:30 + 00 for each player. Instead of the correct 1:00:00 + 30 for each player.

If this is true then it seems obvious that David did not misunderstand the time control to be without increments he incorrectly set the increment of 30 seconds as a part of the initial period and not the increment. Had he made the mistake antichrist is claiming then he would have set the clock to 1:00:00 + 00 or more likely not set it via the Fischer program at all!

Anyway, David may contend that he set the clock correctly as he was arguing at one point that he was receiving increments at the beginning of the game. Under this scenario then the clock was faulty and the setting changed at some point after the 5th move. While not impossible, this scenario seems to be less likely to me and I am not arguing from the position that this is indeed what caused the loss of increments. (Though I don't claim that either possibility is actually what happened).

That is as accurate as I know the events to be and am able to communcate them. Please anyone correct any mistakes I've inadvertently made.

arosar, I hope this helps.

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 07:32 PM
If he was the last to set it as it seems then he must have set it wrong as later checking confirmed that it was not faulty. I think he just forgot that it was not guillotine.

As I noted in my response to arosar above, that is unlikely. Had that been the case Hacche would have not chosen the Fischer program and if he had, he would have set it to 1:00:00 + 0 and not 1:00:30 + 0, which is what I understand to have been uncovered as the setting after the game's completion.

Garvinator
14-01-2007, 07:43 PM
As I noted in my response to arosar above, that is unlikely. Had that been the case Hacche would have not chosen the Fischer program and if he had, he would have set it to 1:30:00 + 0 and not 1:30:30 + 0, which is what I understand to have been uncovered as the setting after the game's completion.
A very likely false setting scenario under the tournament advertised time control of 60 mins plus 30 secs is as follows.

Player chooses option 23.

Chooses 1 hour, then clicks ok twice. Clock is then showing 1:00. Presses ok again and the clock then shows how many seconds you want. Player chooses 30 seconds. This is where mistakes can easily occur.

The player then believes they have set the increment in this stage. Where in fact they are choosing 30 seconds as the initial time, not the increment. So the starting time under this setting is 1 hr and 30 seconds.

The player, thinking they have already set the increment to 30 seconds per move, presses ok right through to the end.

At the end of all this, the clock is showing 1:00 and the triangle is present in the top left hand corner.

The only way to work out the incorrect setting is to either:

1) Observe the clock not adding increments
2) Check the settings manually.

With a 30 second increment, I can see how neither player realised they werent getting the increment until under 20 minutes.

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 07:51 PM
A very likely false setting scenario under the tournament advertised time control of 60 mins plus 30 secs is as follows.

Player chooses option 23.

Chooses 1 hour, then clicks ok twice. Clock is then showing 1:00. Presses ok again and the clock then shows how many seconds you want. Player chooses 30 seconds. This is where mistakes can easily occur.

The player then believes they have set the increment in this stage. Where in fact they are choosing 30 seconds as the initial time, not the increment. So the starting time under this setting is 1 hr and 30 seconds.

The player, thinking they have already set the increment to 30 seconds per move, presses ok right through to the end.

At the end of all this, the clock is showing 1:00 and the triangle is present in the top left hand corner.

The only way to work out the incorrect setting is to either:

1) Observe the clock not adding increments
2) Check the settings manually.

With a 30 second increment, I can see how neither player realised they werent getting the increment until under 20 minutes.

Yes thanks for that. That is the assumption I am working under, however this is not necessarily what David Hacche was/is claiming.

Also I note that, as you point out, the games were 60+30 and not 90+30 so I have fixed my posts above.

Kevin Bonham
14-01-2007, 08:19 PM
I don't think from the wording of B4 it can be argued that a dichotomy of clocks and settings exists in the aws. For starters, App B does ot apply to classical chess.

The preface refers to "analogous situations". It is clear that Gijssen was using exactly this kind of reasoning in his argument.


But discounting that, because the laws talk specifically in that case about the setting of the clock that when they speak solely of a clock having an evident defect that implies the not include the settings.

I have some trouble following this sentence.


I think you'll find Von Neumann architecture is still very relevent in computing today.

This doesn't mean a chess arbiter should be expected to be familiar with it.


Then the mis set clock was clearly evident. The only question then is "was it defective?" Do you agree?

Yes I agree that the mis-set became clearly evident after the flag-fall.

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 08:32 PM
The preface refers to "analogous situations". It is clear that Gijssen was using exactly this kind of reasoning in his argument.

I still find that difficult to accept that it is an argument by analogy. An analogy is when you argue that something is similar to or like something else. It is difficult to reconcile that with the argument that the wording of B4 implies a dichotomy.


I have some trouble following this sentence.

OK. Let me explain it this way. By making the distinction of clock settings in B4 does not mean everywhere else that the term clock is used in the Laws it is intended to mean "clock but not the settings". Once mention in an Appendix seems a flimsy foundation for that argument.


This doesn't mean a chess arbiter should be expected to be familiar with it.

I was using the term to you, not any chess arbiter and you did seem to either be familiar with the term or proficient enough to research the term and come to grips with it. Either way, as I said it is relevent to modern day computing and therefore this debate, irrespective of when Von Neumann actually died.


Yes I agree that the mis-set became clearly evident after the flag-fall.

Was the mis-set clearly evident before the game was awarded on time?

Kevin Bonham
14-01-2007, 08:51 PM
I still find that difficult to accept that it is an argument by analogy. An analogy is when you argue that something is similar to or like something else. It is difficult to reconcile that with the argument that the wording of B4 implies a dichotomy.

The dichotomy in the Rapid laws is merely the subject of the analogy in this case. He is arguing that a dichotomy in one part of the Laws can be assumed to be real elsewhere in the Laws too, even though its treatment elsewhere in the Laws is not explicit. If there was evidence to the contrary elsewhere in the Laws I would disagree with him, but there isn't.


OK. Let me explain it this way. By making the distinction of clock settings in B4 does not mean everywhere else that the term clock is used in the Laws it is intended to mean "clock but not the settings". Once mention in an Appendix seems a flimsy foundation for that argument.

One piece of evidence is better than none. :P


I was using the term to you, not any chess arbiter and you did seem to either be familiar with the term or proficient enough to research the term and come to grips with it. Either way, as I said it is relevent to modern day computing and therefore this debate, irrespective of when Von Neumann actually died.

The reason I brought it back up was because you said that a word ("defective") is meant to have "its everyday meaning and not a jargonistic meaning." And if that is the case, that rules out such technical considerations and probably the great bulk of discussion on this thread.


Was the mis-set clearly evident before the game was awarded on time?

What I have heard strongly suggests this was the case but is not absolutely explicit on the matter.

Rincewind
14-01-2007, 09:04 PM
The dichotomy in the Rapid laws is merely the subject of the analogy in this case. He is arguing that a dichotomy in one part of the Laws can be assumed to be real elsewhere in the Laws too, even though its treatment elsewhere in the Laws is not explicit. If there was evidence to the contrary elsewhere in the Laws I would disagree with him, but there isn't.

One piece of evidence is better than none. :P

The point is it is not clear that there is even one piece of evidence. B4 refers speficially to clock settings but no where does it refer to a clock and not include the clock settings. You cannot deduce from the specific to the general.


The reason I brought it back up was because you said that a word ("defective") is meant to have "its everyday meaning and not a jargonistic meaning." And if that is the case, that rules out such technical considerations and probably the great bulk of discussion on this thread.

The argument has moved on quite a bit from there. Von Neumann came up to show that the settings are a part of the clock and logically not really different from the firmware program that the operator uses.

The common every day usage of the word defect came up when just discussing the semantics of the word "defective".


What I have heard strongly suggests this was the case but is not absolutely explicit on the matter.

Seems he had every reason to suspect it might be the case and it would seem prudent to investigate the situation before the ruling.

Do you agree that in making the rulling the arbiter should check the requiremetns of 6.2(a)?

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2007, 09:21 PM
Seems he had every reason to suspect it might be the case and it would seem prudent to investigate the situation before the ruling.

Do you agree that in making the rulling the arbiter should check the requiremetns of 6.2(a)?Not if the players have agreed that one of them has lost on time.

There would be many games where a players flag falls, his opponent claims a win on time and the player accepts he has lost and the arbiter has no involvement in the game. It is game over, unless situations covered by Articles 5.1 or 5.2 (a), (b) or (c) occurred.

Just because you now add the arbiter to the mix who only confirms after the situation I decribed above occurred that the clock settings were incorrect.
It is too late as the arbiter discovers the error after the game is over.

Bill Gletsos
14-01-2007, 09:26 PM
The question therefore is what was the sequence of events.

Was it Scenario A)

1) Arbiter approaches the board because he has been informed there may be a problem with the clock by a spectator.
2) Player A's flag falls.
3) Player B claims a win on time.
4) Player A accepts the result.
5) The arbiter examines the clock and determines that the settings are incorrect.
6) Arbiter informs the players of the situation but since items 2-4 occurred above lets the results stand.
7) Only now does player A appeal.

or Scenario B)

1) Arbiter approaches the board because he has been informed there may be a problem with the clock by a spectator.
2) Player A's flag falls.
3) Player B claims a win on time.
4) The arbiter examines the clock and determines that the settings are incorrect.
5) Arbiter informs the players of the situation but since items 2-3 occurred above lets the results stand because he rules the game had ended.
6) Only now does player A appeal.

or Scenario C)

some other sequence of events.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 02:29 AM
The point is it is not clear that there is even one piece of evidence. B4 refers speficially to clock settings but no where does it refer to a clock and not include the clock settings.

It doesn't need to because the fact that there are other clock issues still covered by 6.11 automatically generates the dichotomy (in Rapid) between clock setting issues and other clock issues (where these other issues fall under the heading "evident defects").


The argument has moved on quite a bit from there. Von Neumann came up to show that the settings are a part of the clock and logically not really different from the firmware program that the operator uses.

The common every day usage of the word defect came up when just discussing the semantics of the word "defective".

So is it your view that the word "defective" should be interpreted having regard to (i) everyday understandings of the word only, or (ii) everything potentially relevant to understanding it, including technical arguments 95% of DOPs would never have heard of?


Seems he had every reason to suspect it might be the case and it would seem prudent to investigate the situation before the ruling.

This is what I believe that he did.


Do you agree that in making the rulling the arbiter should check the requiremetns of 6.2(a)?

6.3 says so, but I believe this applies to checking the number of moves made . For instance, using analogue clocks it is common that time scrambles happen, a flag falls, but actually the player may have made the time control without realising it. Therefore in such a case, it has to be checked whether the player has actually reached the move control or not before play can contuine (or not).

For flat games or games with increments throughout the game there is nothing to check. If the clock says your time is up, your time is up under 6.11 unless there is an "evident defect".

Rincewind
15-01-2007, 08:10 AM
It doesn't need to because the fact that there are other clock issues still covered by 6.11 automatically generates the dichotomy (in Rapid) between clock setting issues and other clock issues (where these other issues fall under the heading "evident defects").

I believe your argument is invalid and your conclusion not only unsupported but in fact completely wrong.

The fact that B4 says a player cannot claim for an incorrect clock setting establishes that under the classical laws such claims can be made. As the classical laws do not make special provision for clock settings the natural intpretation is that the classical laws imply no dichotomy at all and the clock refers to the clock as well as the settings.

If someone was to claim for an incorrectly set clock under the laws as they stand, under which law would such a claim be made? I would claim the only appropriate law is 6.11 and therefore B4's intention is to limit the application of 6.11 to any evident defect except clock settings wheras without B4 in effect (ie in classical chess) 6.11 has it's full application to the entire clock including settings.


So is it your view that the word "defective" should be interpreted having regard to (i) everyday understandings of the word only, or (ii) everything potentially relevant to understanding it, including technical arguments 95% of DOPs would never have heard of?

I think the key phrase is what is contained in the laws.

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect.

For reasons already argued (and those to point 1 above) I think incorrect settings is an evident defect of the clock. The fact that the clock itself doesn't need to returned to the manufacturer is irrelevent. We are not talking about a claim under the Trade Practices Act. No more than a claim that the batteries are flat. Both are evident defects of the clock as it prevents the arbiter from accurately applyed 6.2(a).


For flat games or games with increments throughout the game there is nothing to check. If the clock says your time is up, your time is up under 6.11 unless there is an "evident defect".

Firstly the arbiter should check that the flag has fallen. In case of a clock free of any evident defects and with only one time cnotrol, yes, that is all that needs to be checked. However in this case it was suspected by the arbiter that the clock was not adding increments and possibly confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt before he ruled on the time claim.

Secondly the law says...

6.2 a. When using a chess clock, each player must make a minimum number of moves or all moves in an allotted period of time and/or may be allocated an additional amount of time with each move. All these must be specified in advance.

Which makes it clear that what was specified in advance (in the tournament conditions and arbiter's announcements) and not what was set into the clock which is the measure of a win on time claim.

The fact that the arbiter knew (or suspected and could determine quickly and evidently by two separate methods) that the allotted period plus allocated additional time had not been used by the claimant's opponent means that the requirements of the laws for awarding a win on time were not satisfied. Therefore the decision to do so was clearly wrong.

antichrist
15-01-2007, 10:40 AM
sorry to divert but you must consider the whole picture concerning clocks. It has all become so complicated with dozens of rules, conventions etc, plus and minus time etc that a person standing back contemplating entering chess as a past-time trying to get a handle on the intracies(?) would just walk away.

Who would want to be a DOP or arbitar if they are going to fight or argue for ages afterwards.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 02:26 PM
The fact that B4 says a player cannot claim for an incorrect clock setting establishes that under the classical laws such claims can be made.

Yes, but it does not establish that they are on the same footing as manufacture defects or that they can be made after the clock states that a player's flag has fallen. It only establishes that a distinction exists at least in Rapid. There are many claims that can be made during a game but not after flagfall.


If someone was to claim for an incorrectly set clock under the laws as they stand, under which law would such a claim be made?

Who says it has to be made under any law? I have mentioned Laws under which an arbiter could reasonably adjust an incorrectly set clock before, eg 13.2.

You didn't choose between (i) and (ii) in my question about how "defective" should be understood.


Which makes it clear that what was specified in advance (in the tournament conditions and arbiter's announcements) and not what was set into the clock which is the measure of a win on time claim.

It seems that you're saying that 6.2(a) overrides 6.11 in that if the requirements of 6.2(a) are shown not to be satisfied by calculation then the clock must have an "evident defect", whereas in my view 6.11 overrides 6.2(a) unless an "evident defect" (which I read slightly more narrowly) is present.

Why then does 6.11 say "evident defect", when if 6.2(a) had priority a more general phrase like "clear evidence to the contrary" would be better and less confusing?

Rincewind
15-01-2007, 04:30 PM
Yes, but it does not establish that they are on the same footing as manufacture defects or that they can be made after the clock states that a player's flag has fallen. It only establishes that a distinction exists at least in Rapid. There are many claims that can be made during a game but not after flagfall.

I think the argument that a distinction exists in Rapid and not in classical makes a strong case that claims on clock settings are considered to be sufficiently catered for in the classical laws as they stand. As settings are neither included or excluded anywhere explicitly in the classical laws then the dichotomy underpinning your position is not evident.

Regarding the timing of the claim, that is supported by the other parts of the argument such as the wording of 6.11 and 6.2(a) and so I won't repeat here.


Who says it has to be made under any law? I have mentioned Laws under which an arbiter could reasonably adjust an incorrectly set clock before, eg 13.2.

You didn't choose between (i) and (ii) in my question about how "defective" should be understood.

As mentioned above the lack of explicitly naming clock settings in the classical laws indicates that the rules committee are satisfied that such claims are adequately catered for in the classical laws as they stand. I think there is room for more clarity but that is just me.

Regarding the term "defect" I think the phrase can be taken to have its everyday meaning in the context of the wording of law 6.11 and the Laws of Chess more widely.

It would be repetative to go through this in detail again but the key phrase is

ANY EVIDENT DEFECT

Evident means obviously or easily determinable and a defect is a shortcoming. However, one word which hasn't been talked about much in this thread is "any" which according to the Oxford Dictionary Online means "of whatever kind". I think the inclusion of the word any on the law makes it clear that the intention is to make law 6.11 as inclusive as can be reasonably interpreted. One reasonable interpretation according to a standard dictionary is "an easily determinable shortcoming of whatever kind". I think you will agree that the case in point satisfies this phrase.


It seems that you're saying that 6.2(a) overrides 6.11 in that if the requirements of 6.2(a) are shown not to be satisfied by calculation then the clock must have an "evident defect", whereas in my view 6.11 overrides 6.2(a) unless an "evident defect" (which I read slightly more narrowly) is present.

Why then does 6.11 say "evident defect", when if 6.2(a) had priority a more general phrase like "clear evidence to the contrary" would be better and less confusing?

I don't see that either law overrides the other just a case of flowing through the laws as I will outline shortly. The intention of 6.2(a) is to specify the measure whereby a decision on a win on time should be judged. The purpose of 6.11 is to outline the extent whereby the arbiter and players can rely on the times, flags and move counters of the clocks, and it also specifies that a clock with any evident defect should be replaced (which is common sense really).

The fact that the arbiter in assessing a win on time claim should refer to the clock means that the question of the veracity of the time and flag status is potentionally open toi question and therefore 6.11 comes into play. If the clock is taken to be unreliable then the arbiter must use another means to decide on the claim in terms of the clause that all the allotted time and allocated additional time has been used.

The flow of the situation would be I believe as follows.

(1) The arbiter witnesses the flagfall (6.3)

(2) He checks the requirements of 6.2(a) and he determines that the opponent has not had all the allotted time plus increments and so the game is not awarded as won on time

(3) Under 6.11 he replaces the clocks with as correct as possible times plus increments to enable him to decide on 6.2(a) in the event of a future flagfall (plus optionally discretionary time for the interuption) and play then continues.

___

Regarding your narrower defintion, I'll just reiterate that the wording of 6.11 is "any evident defect", not just an "evident defect". As such I don't believe the laws encourage adopting a narrow definition of this term.

Rincewind
15-01-2007, 04:41 PM
Who would want to be a DOP or arbitar if they are going to fight or argue for ages afterwards.

This debate is academic in the context of that tournament. However the debate is useful for future situation and potentially for realising area where the rules can be made more specific or tightened up.

The reason they go on for some time is that (I believe) Kevin and I have mutual respect for each other's opinions but hold our own opinions in higher regard. ;)

Oepty
15-01-2007, 05:37 PM
I have read most of what has been said on this thread and I am not sure that an incorrect settings is a defect under the rules. It seems to me though a clock defect might cause an arbiter or player, especially in they are unfimilar with the type of clock being used, to make an error in setting the clock. For example where the clock is faulty and does not allow the setting of increments when it should. This surely would be covered under 6.11 as the clock is faulty.
Scott

Recherché
15-01-2007, 09:04 PM
To use a loaded term like tampering and suggesting by doing so that Hacche's lose was serving the ends of justice does nothing but underline your partisan and ill-informed position on the matter.

As clarification, ball tampering was simply one of the first things that came to mind, with regards to other examples of players interfering with equipment where it had the potential to influence the result, and there was significant penalty for doing so. Call me rhetorically lazy, if you like.

I have never, and will never, accuse Mr Hacche of setting the clock wrong deliberately. It was clearly an unintentional mistake on his part. I don't believe, either, that he should receive a forfeit loss for doing so.

What I do believe, is that it is no more a stretch to argue that he should receive such a loss, than it is to argue that he has been unfairly treated in this matter (with regards to the ruling of the arbiter, and the subsequent upholding of that ruling by the appeals committee).

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 09:27 PM
I think the argument that a distinction exists in Rapid and not in classical makes a strong case that claims on clock settings are considered to be sufficiently catered for in the classical laws as they stand.

Not necessarily. It could simply reflect that there are very strong reasons to regulate the issue explicitly in Rapid that do not apply to normal time controls. The most obvious such reason is to reduce the pressure on arbiters later in the rounds, and hence ensure events run smoothly given their likely tight schedule.


As settings are neither included or excluded anywhere explicitly in the classical laws then the dichotomy underpinning your position is not evident.

If it was clearly evident, there would be no need to mention argument by analogy!


Regarding the term "defect" I think the phrase can be taken to have its everyday meaning in the context of the wording of law 6.11 and the Laws of Chess more widely.

I'm just not convinced it has a single everyday meaning, as discussed above.


Evident means obviously or easily determinable and a defect is a shortcoming. However, one word which hasn't been talked about much in this thread is "any" which according to the Oxford Dictionary Online means "of whatever kind".

I don't think "any" makes a difference; it could be "an" and it would mean the same thing. If something's not a "defect" then it isn't an "evident defect" or "any evident defect".


I think the inclusion of the word any on the law makes it clear that the intention is to make law 6.11 as inclusive as can be reasonably interpreted.

I don't. Feel free to convince me. :D


One reasonable interpretation according to a standard dictionary is "an easily determinable shortcoming of whatever kind". I think you will agree that the case in point satisfies this phrase.

It is a shortcoming, but of the settings.


Who would want to be a DOP or arbitar if they are going to fight or argue for ages afterwards.

The main reason for such long debates is that the Laws are a dog's breakfast and very many things are not clearly explained within them.

By the way, I'm not even arguing here that the arbiter's decision was necessarily right or even what I would have done. I'm only arguing that it was not clearly wrong.

Observers might rightly take the length of this debate, given the combatants, as itself evidence of my claim. ;)

WhiteElephant
15-01-2007, 09:31 PM
Geoff put in a lot of hard work to organise and promote this tournament, resulting in more players participating than in the Australian Open.

When I dropped in, various people were telling me how much they were enjoying playing in the tournament.

When the incident occurred, Geoff did his best to sort out the situation.

It is a shame that this incident is getting so much attention.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 09:54 PM
Moderation Notice

Numerous posts considered too personal, or off-topic, or to be moderation comments, have just been deleted.

Rincewind
15-01-2007, 10:10 PM
What I do believe, is that it is no more a stretch to argue that he should receive such a loss, than it is to argue that he has been unfairly treated in this matter (with regards to the ruling of the arbiter, and the subsequent upholding of that ruling by the appeals committee).

I didn't say the treatment was unfair just potentially unlawful (in terms of the laws of chess). The arbiter has a duty to be fair but he has a greater duty (in my mind) to administer the laws of chess as accurately as possible.

I have no axe to grind with the arbiter (though I do with those like yourself and A/C to try to hijack chess related threads). If you want to talk about the laws of chess then post in this thread. If you want to troll then there is a place for that too. It is not here.

Bill Gletsos
15-01-2007, 10:16 PM
I didn't say the treatment was unfair just potentially unlawful (in terms of the laws of chess). The arbiter has a duty to be fair but he has a greater duty (in my mind) to administer the laws of chess as accurately as possible.Clearly the arbiter believes he did.
As for the Appeals Committee they must have shared that view otherwise no doubt they would have overturned his decision.

Rincewind
15-01-2007, 10:39 PM
Not necessarily. It could simply reflect that there are very strong reasons to regulate the issue explicitly in Rapid that do not apply to normal time controls. The most obvious such reason is to reduce the pressure on arbiters later in the rounds, and hence ensure events run smoothly given their likely tight schedule.

Seems more contrived explanation than mine. But perhaps that is just me. The Laws of chess seem to be writen from the European/Russian perspective where the arbiter to player ratio is much higher than what we have locally.


If it was clearly evident, there would be no need to mention argument by analogy!

Then the analogy is a particularly weak one. To argue that a mention of a dichotomy in Rapid when non exist in classical means there is an implied dichotomy which should be applied in classical is just nonsensical when an equally valid interpretation is that no mention of the dichotomy exists because the classical laws are meant to apply to both aspects of the dichotomy. IE in classical chess there is no effective dichotomy and the division only makes a difference in Rapid chess.


I'm just not convinced it has a single everyday meaning, as discussed above.

No word has any single word but often the context is the over-riding determinor. In this case the purpose of the clock is clear and there is no promise of the clock to perform in any particular way with regards to battery life.

For example, if a clock is meant to have 100 hours battery life and it only has 50. This could be called a defect of the clock from the point of view of the Trade Practices act and you would have grounds to return the clock to the supplier/manufacturer and seek cmopensation. However, frmo the laws of chess, provided the clock did not run out of batteries during the game ni question, it's shortness of battery life would not present a defect as it would not impact on the clock's fitness to be used according to the laws of chess.

On the other hand, if a clock which did have normal battery usage was to be set incorrectly so that increments were not applied. Then that clock cannot be used to correctly make a determniation under 6.2(a) until that shortcoming is corrected. Therefore in the context of the laws of chess that clock has a defect.


I don't think "any" makes a difference; it could be "an" and it would mean the same thing. If something's not a "defect" then it isn't an "evident defect" or "any evident defect".

The usage you refer to (any as a simple pronoun) is usually only applied when you are writing something in the negative or in the form of a question.

However 6.11 reads..

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect.

Which is not a question or in the negative. If it had read somethnig like...

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive if there aren't any evident defects.

then I would agree that your interpretation is valid. However since this is not the case I believe there is a better case for a stronger meaning of "any" to apply. That is, "of whatever kind" which leads one to conclude that a more inclusive definition of "evident defect" is supported by that wording.


It is a shortcoming, but of the settings.

Yes and as I have stated the classical laws make no dichotomy. The dichotomy nithe Rapid laws serves only to highlight that the a dichotomy in the classical laws is conspicuous my its absence and finally the word "any" definitely supports that a wide definition of "evident defect" is appropriate.

What do you have left?

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 10:55 PM
Further moderation notice

Posts consisting of contentious meta-debate have now been generally moved here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5719) although those concerning irrelevant stuff about personal lives will remain deleted.

There are some posts of a half-and-half nature on both the parent thread and the split thread so in this case please choose which is the most appropriate thread to discuss issues on.

Kevin Bonham
15-01-2007, 11:51 PM
Seems more contrived explanation than mine. But perhaps that is just me. The Laws of chess seem to be writen from the European/Russian perspective where the arbiter to player ratio is much higher than what we have locally.

It doesn't matter how many arbiters you have; one situation requiring lengthy investigation arising late in one game can still hold up the following round.


To argue that a mention of a dichotomy in Rapid when non exist in classical means there is an implied dichotomy which should be applied in classical is just nonsensical when an equally valid interpretation is that no mention of the dichotomy exists because the classical laws are meant to apply to both aspects of the dichotomy.

Equally valid. Indeed (for the sake of argument ...). That means the arbiter could just as easily go either way on whether there is a dichotomy, therefore the matter is subjective, therefore the arbiter's decision is not clearly wrong but is one of a number of options - which is what I have been arguing all along. ;)


No word has any single word but often the context is the over-riding determinor. In this case the purpose of the clock is clear and there is no promise of the clock to perform in any particular way with regards to battery life.

For example, if a clock is meant to have 100 hours battery life and it only has 50. This could be called a defect of the clock from the point of view of the Trade Practices act and you would have grounds to return the clock to the supplier/manufacturer and seek cmopensation. However, frmo the laws of chess, provided the clock did not run out of batteries during the game ni question, it's shortness of battery life would not present a defect as it would not impact on the clock's fitness to be used according to the laws of chess.

I don't see the relevance, since such a clock is defective from an everyday understanding (and this could be relevant to the Laws if it caused the batteries to fail mid-game), but if the defect does not appear during the game in any way then it is not an evident defect.


On the other hand, if a clock which did have normal battery usage was to be set incorrectly so that increments were not applied. Then that clock cannot be used to correctly make a determniation under 6.2(a) until that shortcoming is corrected. Therefore in the context of the laws of chess that clock has a defect.

Previously covered to my satisfaction.


The usage you refer to (any as a simple pronoun) is usually only applied when you are writing something in the negative or in the form of a question.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? (Not that I need it really)


However 6.11 reads..

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect.

Which is not a question or in the negative. If it had read somethnig like...

Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive if there aren't any evident defects.

then I would agree that your interpretation is valid. However since this is not the case I believe there is a better case for a stronger meaning of "any" to apply. That is, "of whatever kind" which leads one to conclude that a more inclusive definition of "evident defect" is supported by that wording.

No matter what meaning of "any" you apply, it doesn't make something that is not in the class in question ("defects"), or that is dubiously in the class in question, enter the class in question. All it does is indicate that all "evident defects" of the clock are covered by the rule.

Also, that "any evident defect" simply = "an evident defect" is confirmed by the following sentence which uses the latter. I find it extremely unlikely that the framers of this law put even an instant's thought into the implications of writing "any" rather than "an", or were aware there were any, or even that there are any!

I will accept the view that something was intended by the use of "any" in this context only if supported by historical evidence that the word was chosen deliberately.

Rincewind
16-01-2007, 07:18 AM
It doesn't matter how many arbiters you have; one situation requiring lengthy investigation arising late in one game can still hold up the following round.

The more the merrier and the less such delays would have an impact. The laws seem to assume that arbiters are a dime a dozen as evident from rules like 8.5(a). Whilst this only says "should try" I can't remember seeing it happen.


Equally valid. Indeed (for the sake of argument ...). That means the arbiter could just as easily go either way on whether there is a dichotomy, therefore the matter is subjective, therefore the arbiter's decision is not clearly wrong but is one of a number of options - which is what I have been arguing all along. ;)

Well "equally valid" was a poorly selected phrase. Really I think my interpretation is more valid for the reasons I have already said. If the law makers intended there to be a dichotomy they could have easily introduced it in the classical laws. As I said it is conspicuous by its absence.


I don't see the relevance, since such a clock is defective from an everyday understanding (and this could be relevant to the Laws if it caused the batteries to fail mid-game), but if the defect does not appear during the game in any way then it is not an evident defect.

I as just talking about it being a defect and not evident. A similar defect could become evident over a number of games and called into question by the a player after a flagfall. However if everything is ok during the game in question then it is not a defect in this context.


Previously covered to my satisfaction.

Meaning you decide to introduce a nonexistant dichotomy into the classical laws on an arbitrarily chosen boundary.


Do you have any evidence for this claim? (Not that I need it really)

Other than the rules of grammar you mean? I don't have a standard grammar reference at hand but according to my Oxford Dictionary...

any determiner & pronoun
1 [usu. with negative or in questions] used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.
anyone.
2 whichever of a specified class might be chosen.
adverb [usu. with negative or in questions] [as submodifer] at all; in some degree (used for emphasis).


No matter what meaning of "any" you apply, it doesn't make something that is not in the class in question ("defects"), or that is dubiously in the class in question, enter the class in question. All it does is indicate that all "evident defects" of the clock are covered by the rule.

Also, that "any evident defect" simply = "an evident defect" is confirmed by the following sentence which uses the latter. I find it extremely unlikely that the framers of this law put even an instant's thought into the implications of writing "any" rather than "an", or were aware there were any, or even that there are any!

I will accept the view that something was intended by the use of "any" in this context only if supported by historical evidence that the word was chosen deliberately.

Well if you are going to take words to have convenient meanings even though such means contravene the conventions of grammar then I don't think you are taking the debate very seriously. We must assume that the law makers were sufficiently conversant with english and chose the words and phrases as accurately as possible and deliberated the selection of the words and phrases accordingly. If they meant "an" they would have written "an", however by enacting "any" they meant "any".

The interpretation of "Whichever of a specified class" clearly impacts this debate as your position is that the arbiter was justified in ruling the game lost on 6.2(a) because the flagfall is taken to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect by taking a narrow definition of the term "defect" to mean anything wrong witht he clock other than its settings. By encouraging a wider defintion of the class of evident defects the support for you position is considerably weakened.

It also raises the question whether the arbiter should uphold the laws as they are written down (the letter of the law) or try to determine what the law makers had in their heads and were trying to write down. Given that there is no single law maker and therefore no one unified vision for the laws of chess I would argue we must accept the laws in their written form as evident of the intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

You are (in effect) arguing that the wording of the laws is guilty until proven innocent. However I don't accept that the onus is on me to prove the lawmaker knew what they were writing. The onus is on you to prove that they didn't. Therefore, without historical evidence to the contrary, I think we must accept the laws in their current form.

arosar
16-01-2007, 08:39 AM
Did you guys already discuss the meaning of "defect"?

AR

Desmond
16-01-2007, 09:06 AM
Did you guys already discuss the meaning of "defect"?Only for 200 posts or so.

Rincewind
16-01-2007, 09:24 AM
Did you guys already discuss the meaning of "defect"?

From post 294 or so and just above (all originally from ODE)...

any - whichever of a specified class might be chosen
evident - clearly seen or understood, obvious
defect - a shortcoming, imperfection or lack

pax
16-01-2007, 12:11 PM
You are NOW saying

the arbiter set the clocks himself????

Mischa, each post has a little button called "quote". Clicking this button allows you to reply to a message including a quote of the message you are replying to.

I strongly suggest you start using the quote button, as I (and, I'm sure many others) find your messages very confusing when most of the time there is no indication to whom they are directed. This is especially important when you reply to a message which is not in the 'latest' page.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2007, 03:16 PM
The more the merrier and the less such delays would have an impact.

Does not follow. Whether you have one arbiter or fifty a dispute arising late in the round can still hold up the next round by the same amount of time.


The laws seem to assume that arbiters are a dime a dozen as evident from rules like 8.5(a). Whilst this only says "should try" I can't remember seeing it happen.

Happens frequently where I am. But then again we have a lot more guillotine finishes than elsewhere. Also, arbiters can co-opt assistants for the purposes of that rule. The Laws do not necessarily assume arbiters are a dime a dozen, as witnessed by article D.


Well "equally valid" was a poorly selected phrase.

Poorly selected if your aim is the indefinite perpetuation of the debate, perhaps. :lol:


Meaning you decide to introduce a nonexistant dichotomy into the classical laws on an arbitrarily chosen boundary.

Not arbitrary since the boundary exists in the Rapid laws.


Other than the rules of grammar you mean? I don't have a standard grammar reference at hand but according to my Oxford Dictionary...

any determiner & pronoun
1 [usu. with negative or in questions] used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or how many.
anyone.
2 whichever of a specified class might be chosen.
adverb [usu. with negative or in questions] [as submodifer] at all; in some degree (used for emphasis).

Usually with negative? "In the absence of any evident defect". "Absence" is a negative. Therefore where you said previously "The usage you refer to (any as a simple pronoun) is usually only applied when you are writing something in the negative or in the form of a question" you confirmed that my usage is entirely correct!


Well if you are going to take words to have convenient meanings even though such means contravene the conventions of grammar then I don't think you are taking the debate very seriously.

But as shown above I am completely within the conventions of grammar that you mentioned! So mirroring the above (otherwise I wouldn't say it), if you are going to make false accusations of contravention of the conventions of grammar, then you might be taking the debate rather too seriously. :lol:


We must assume that the law makers were sufficiently conversant with english and chose the words and phrases as accurately as possible and deliberated the selection of the words and phrases accordingly.

No we mustn't assume any such thing. :hand:

English is not even the first language of a great many of the contributors to the Laws. I was involved in the last review, I know these things.


If they meant "an" they would have written "an", however by enacting "any" they meant "any".

I don't believe a word of it. If they meant "any" for some specific reason they would have used "any" both times. Using "any" once and "an" once shows they saw no difference. There is no difference anyway, as confirmed by my note on "absence" above.


The interpretation of "Whichever of a specified class" clearly impacts this debate as your position is that the arbiter was justified in ruling the game lost on 6.2(a) because the flagfall is taken to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect by taking a narrow definition of the term "defect" to mean anything wrong witht he clock other than its settings. By encouraging a wider defintion of the class of evident defects the support for you position is considerably weakened.

There was no evidence that the use of "any" encouraged such a wider definition even before I demolished your false claim that my use of "any" was irregular.


It also raises the question whether the arbiter should uphold the laws as they are written down (the letter of the law) or try to determine what the law makers had in their heads and were trying to write down. Given that there is no single law maker and therefore no one unified vision for the laws of chess I would argue we must accept the laws in their written form as evident of the intent in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The intent is not clearly and indisputably evident at many points, and the Laws even include a Preface that recognises that.

I also think that intent is relevant at many points in the Laws. For example, it is impossible to make sense of "normal means" in 10.2 without understanding both intent and convention, and challenging enough even then.


You are (in effect) arguing that the wording of the laws is guilty until proven innocent.

Actually, I'm arguing the Laws are demonstrably innocent of your eccentric and (as shown above) wholly unnecessary property-shifting definition of "any", until proven guilty.

Again, if I encounter anyone who uses "any" the way you have done in the next twenty years, I will be sure to let you know. Extreme lumpers in taxonomy excepted, that is. I can see how they might find it of interest. :D

Rincewind
16-01-2007, 04:40 PM
By my understanding of grammar, the use of the word is "absence" does not make the clause negative. The standard way is to use "not" with a verb or a negative adverb like nothing, no, none, etc. If you can provide a reference to a standard work which supports your claim I'll reconsider.

Again I would say that the word any appearing first and in the place talking about the measure of conclusive proof is again evidence that those drafting the law knew what they were doing. The used "any" to emphasis that "any evident defect" should throw into doubt the conclusive nature of the flagfall. In the subsequent sentence it is not needed as it is just prescribing (as per common sense) that a clock with a defect should be replaced and the indefinite article is all that is required there.

The rest of your previous post is either bluster, unsubstantiated or wrong as per the contents of this one.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2007, 06:14 PM
By my understanding of grammar, the use of the word is "absence" does not make the clause negative.

Your "understanding" of grammar involves the word "any" transforming the properties of classification, so I've already lost interest in it as an argument.


The standard way is to use "not" with a verb or a negative adverb like nothing, no, none, etc. If you can provide a reference to a standard work which supports your claim I'll reconsider.

You provide no evidence for your claim re "standard way" with reference to anything so I see no reason to bother, and in any case "standard" would be insufficient; you would have to prove that "absence" can never indicate a negative (good luck with that then).


Again I would say that the word any appearing first and in the place talking about the measure of conclusive proof is again evidence that those drafting the law knew what they were doing. The used "any" to emphasis that "any evident defect" should throw into doubt the conclusive nature of the flagfall.

No new evidence to support this contention so I stand by my previous comments.

Furthermore the Law previously referred to "the absence of evident defects", and this 20-30 years after FIDE had been asked (and refused) to define the issue. The purpose of changing it to "any evident defect" was most likely simply to pedant-proof the Law by ensuring the case of a single "defect" was covered. Had FIDE intended a broader definition they have had numerous opportunities to indicate one clearly in the nearly fifty years since the issue was raised. They haven't done so but have instead left it to the discretion of the arbiter.


The rest of your previous post is either bluster, unsubstantiated or wrong as per the contents of this one.

Somehow I very much doubt it. :lol:

Rincewind
16-01-2007, 09:42 PM
Your lack of knowledge of English grammar is not my problem. To the noun absence is not negative as you are not negating anything. You are speaking in the affirmative regarding the absence of something.

To speak in the negative you need a negator which is a word like not, no, none, etc. Generally either the word "not" or a negative adverb.

I would call this Grammar 101 but it is not tertiary level.

Rincewind
16-01-2007, 09:53 PM
If you have access to the Oxford Online Reference Premium service you could look up negation in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. The online reference is

"negation" The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 16 January 2007 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t28.e905>

The fact that I am supplying you the link probably gives you the clue that there is nothing there that supports your postion. ;)

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2007, 11:50 PM
Your lack of knowledge of English grammar is not my problem.

Do you have professional experience or tertiary qualifications in English grammar or any related field? If so please state them.


To the noun absence is not negative as you are not negating anything. You are speaking in the affirmative regarding the absence of something.

No evidence advanced for this contention. Not convinced.


To speak in the negative you need a negator which is a word like not, no, none, etc. Generally either the word "not" or a negative adverb.

No evidence advanced for this contention. Not convinced.


If you have access to the Oxford Online Reference Premium service you could look up negation in the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. The online reference is

"negation" The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Sylvia Chalker and Edmund Weiner. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 16 January 2007 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t28.e905>

The fact that I am supplying you the link probably gives you the clue that there is nothing there that supports your postion.

"The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded".

I shall have to resort to my OMED, crude and unspecialised as it doubtless is:

negation: 1. the absence or opposite of something actual or positive.

If you need to resort to specialised grammatical arguments to win your case (assuming it will help you, which, thus far, it hasn't) then you've already lost the debate anyway. The Laws of Chess are meant to be used by people whose language skills should be reasonable but are not likely to be based on specialised study. If two interpretations are plausible at such a linguistic skill level then both interpretations are reasonable ones for an arbiter to take. An expert grammarian would doubtless shoot holes all over the Laws as they currently stand so trying to interpret what a law means (or at least is intended to mean) using very fine points of grammar is invalid.

antichrist
16-01-2007, 11:53 PM
If you need to resort to specialised grammatical arguments to win your case (assuming it will help you, which, thus far, it hasn't) then you've already lost the debate anyway. The Laws of Chess are meant to be used by people whose language skills should be reasonable but are not likely to be based on specialised study. If two interpretations are plausible at such a linguistic skill level then both interpretations are reasonable ones for an arbiter to take. An expert grammarian would doubtless shoot holes all over the Laws as they currently stand so trying to interpret what a law means (or at least is intended to mean) using very fine points of grammar is invalid.

pretty convincing to me

Basil
16-01-2007, 11:54 PM
Someone looking for a grammar ruling? Do I need to summon Answerman? :)

Rincewind
17-01-2007, 12:08 AM
If you need to resort to specialised grammatical arguments to win your case (assuming it will help you, which, thus far, it hasn't) then you've already lost the debate anyway. The Laws of Chess are meant to be used by people whose language skills should be reasonable but are not likely to be based on specialised study. If two interpretations are plausible at such a linguistic skill level then both interpretations are reasonable ones for an arbiter to take. An expert grammarian would doubtless shoot holes all over the Laws as they currently stand so trying to interpret what a law means (or at least is intended to mean) using very fine points of grammar is invalid.

It is not specialised grammatical argument. Your definition of how the word "any" should be interpreted is just wrong. Wrong in an everyday ordinary sense. The grammar usage indications refer to the grammatical definition of negation and as you don't have access to the the page I'll send you a PM with the details cut and pasted. But basically it is pretty much exactly as I have already outlined twice.

Basically it comes down to the this.

There is no deference between a clock and it settings in the classical laws. There is specific mention of setting in Appendix B but this just serves to limit the scope of what is covered by the main Laws and therefore it is clear that the main laws are meant to apply to the whole clock, settings and all.

Secondly the word any means "of whichever kind". Your usage of it just being used in place of an indefinite article can only be supported for negative clauses or questions. Neither apply in this case. (PM to follow).

The wording of 6.11 is "any evident defect" and given the semantic reasons above there should be taken inclusively and adopting a limited defintion has no support whatsoever.

Therefore I continue to confidently assert that under 6.11 the clock had an evident defect and therefore the ruling under 6.2(a) should have been rejected as the requirements of that law were unable to be upheld. The evident defect should have been correct, the times adjusted and play continue.

The appeals committee seems was heavily swayed by the advice of IA Bekker in this case but his overriding principle that the result should stand seems misjudged on the grounds that a flagfall does not automatically end a game and in any regard an evident defect in the clock was discovered before the claim for a win on time was decided. By an ordinary reading of the rules it should have been clear to the arbiter what to do in the situation and an appeal to the Preface is not required.

Kevin Bonham
17-01-2007, 12:49 AM
It is not specialised grammatical argument. Your definition of how the word "any" should be interpreted is just wrong. Wrong in an everyday ordinary sense.

No evidence advanced for this claim. I don't believe it (while I do believe your classification-altering view of "any" is extremely irregular on account of having absolutely never encountered it or anything like it).

Also I note your lack of response to my question about your qualifications or professional experience. I believe this question is relevant in light of your unsupported claim to know what was and wasn't "tertiary" grammar.


The grammar usage indications refer to the grammatical definition of negation and as you don't have access to the the page I'll send you a PM with the details cut and pasted. But basically it is pretty much exactly as I have already outlined twice.

Thankyou.

I have read it and while it does indeed indicate that something is "typically ... negated by adding not or -n't" (and gives several examples) it in no way excludes other forms of negation. Indeed it gives some examples without indicating that these are in any way exhaustive.

The Law could just as easily have said "Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive if there is no evident defect" (or whatever other construction is needed to align it exactly with the examples you sent me) and it would again mean exactly the same thing.

Since you have disagreed with my claim that "an evident defect" means exactly the same thing as "any evident defect" in this context, please give a practical example of a clock condition which in your view would qualify under the current wording "in the absence of any evident defect" and would not qualify under the wordings "in the absence of an evident defect", "if there is not any evident defect", "if there is no evident defect" etc.

Your recap may well be helpful to other readers but adds nothing new to the debate, and also your post does nothing (except for one completely unsubstantiated claim at the top) to address my point about the irrelevance of fine-scale grammatical distinctions.

arosar
17-01-2007, 07:51 AM
Well, if you guys have nothing more to say then I reckon we should now have your closing remarks. There's too much info in the preceding and some of us are getting lost. I am anyway.

One post each that summarises everything and then that's it!

Thanks,

AR

antichrist
17-01-2007, 10:12 AM
Then we will have a jury decide the issue - what was the issue again??

Rincewind
21-01-2007, 10:41 AM
No evidence advanced for this claim. I don't believe it (while I do believe your classification-altering view of "any" is extremely irregular on account of having absolutely never encountered it or anything like it).

The evidence already advanced are entries from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "any" with gramatical usage notes and the entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar explaining the term negation in a grammatical context. Your "evidence" thus far is just you don't want it to mean that and you claim to have not encountered this usage before (despite it being an entry from the dictionary).


Also I note your lack of response to my question about your qualifications or professional experience. I believe this question is relevant in light of your unsupported claim to know what was and wasn't "tertiary" grammar.

As I knew it before consulting the dictionary and never having studied grammar at a tertiary level I assume I was taught it at secondary level, which was the last place I did study grammar. My only other related study was conversational Italian which did improve my knowledge of grammatical terms but I don't think is relevant to this case, and logic as an undergraduate which may have helped slightly.


I have read it and while it does indeed indicate that something is "typically ... negated by adding not or -n't" (and gives several examples) it in no way excludes other forms of negation. Indeed it gives some examples without indicating that these are in any way exhaustive.

Words don't mean just what you want them to mean unless whoever you are arguing with cannot find an explicit definition excludnig your meaning. I have provided a complete entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar which absolutely vindicates my position and does nothing to support yours. If you wish to continue a semantic discussion you will need to come up with something other than "that is not what I understand it to mean".


The Law could just as easily have said "Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive if there is no evident defect" (or whatever other construction is needed to align it exactly with the examples you sent me) and it would again mean exactly the same thing.

I'm not interested in what the laws could have said. Just what they say. We are discussing the meaning of what they say and my position is strengthened by references to standard lexographies. Yours is just opinion.


Since you have disagreed with my claim that "an evident defect" means exactly the same thing as "any evident defect" in this context, please give a practical example of a clock condition which in your view would qualify under the current wording "in the absence of any evident defect" and would not qualify under the wordings "in the absence of an evident defect", "if there is not any evident defect", "if there is no evident defect" etc.

A specific example would not serve the debate. The point of the wording is that "any evident defect" should be interpreted as "an evident defect of any kind" whereas "an evident defect" is not as emphatic. There is obviously less room for intpretation of defects in the official statement of the laws.


Your recap may well be helpful to other readers but adds nothing new to the debate, and also your post does nothing (except for one completely unsubstantiated claim at the top) to address my point about the irrelevance of fine-scale grammatical distinctions.

At present I am the only one to have substantiated my claims. The evidence on your side (semantically at least) seems to be soley the opinion of Dr K. Bonham.

Kevin Bonham
21-01-2007, 03:55 PM
The evidence already advanced are entries from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "any" with gramatical usage notes and the entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar explaining the term negation in a grammatical context. Your "evidence" thus far is just you don't want it to mean that and you claim to have not encountered this usage before (despite it being an entry from the dictionary).

You have not provided any evidence from any source that the word "any" can alter the properties of classification in such a way that its presence (even as a stressing term) can make something definitely a member of a class that was otherwise only dubiously or debatably so. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate such a definition.

I haven't found your attempts to knock holes in my far less unusual usage of "any" convincing thus far, but even if they succeed on some specialised technical ground of grammar, I don't care unless you can demonstrate how they actually make a difference to the meaning of the Laws through a specific example. When you write:


A specific example would not serve the debate.

... I disagree. If you could find one and make it stick, it would prove your position about the meaning of "any", although I would argue that this still does not matter because such a non-obvious understanding of "any" should not be assumed amoung readers of the Laws. If you can't find an example, that's most likely because none exists.

I do agree that "any" can be used as a stressing term, but I see no evidence at all that its use as a stressing term changes the meaning of the sentence. It just changes the intensity with which the point is expressed. "Do not bring any alcohol into this venue" means exactly the same thing about what a venue owner is allowing you to do as "Do not bring alcohol into this venue" but maybe carries a sterner tone about how it will be viewed if you don't comply. It doesn't mean you get busted for bringing in fruit juice.


As I knew it before consulting the dictionary and never having studied grammar at a tertiary level I assume I was taught it at secondary level, which was the last place I did study grammar. My only other related study was conversational Italian which did improve my knowledge of grammatical terms but I don't think is relevant to this case, and logic as an undergraduate which may have helped slightly.

Curiously enough, most of the English grammar I learnt at school was when studying a foreign language (German). This debate has done nothing to convince me I missed anything very useful by not studying it beyond school level. Hasn't stopped me getting editing work, for instance. :D


Words don't mean just what you want them to mean unless whoever you are arguing with cannot find an explicit definition excludnig your meaning.

My sentiments exactly concerning your classification-altering definition of "any".


I have provided a complete entry from the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar which absolutely vindicates my position and does nothing to support yours.

No, because your position requires an exclusion of "absence" as a negative, which the page does not provide.


If you wish to continue a semantic discussion you will need to come up with something other than "that is not what I understand it to mean".

But what people understand the Laws to mean is critical to this whole debate. If there are a range of interpretations reasonably open to a person with reasonable English language skills, then one cannot blame an arbiter, acting without the benefit of a few hundred posts of internet debate, from taking any one of those interpretations.


I'm not interested in what the laws could have said. Just what they say. We are discussing the meaning of what they say and my position is strengthened by references to standard lexographies. Yours is just opinion.

As I see it you have attempted to use standard lexographies to strengthen your case but haven't yet made anything significant stick by doing so. Furthermore, I have used evidence to strengthen my position, but largely of a different sort - for instance my comments several posts back on the previous wordings of the Laws. I have challenged your use of the "evidence" you have brought in. You haven't challenged mine at all.


The point of the wording is that "any evident defect" should be interpreted as "an evident defect of any kind" whereas "an evident defect" is not as emphatic.

It doesn't matter, because if something is "an evident defect of any kind" then it is also logically "an evident defect". It cannot logically be the first and not the second. Furthermore, if it's not clear whether something is "an evident defect" then it is also not clear if it is "an evident defect of any kind". Perhaps we should discuss set theory on this point; it would be less tedious and irrelevant than grammar. You would probably have a large advantage over me in that field but my position is unloseable anyway. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
23-01-2007, 01:54 AM
Article 14.5 stated: Every indication given by a clock or its apparatus is considered as conclusive in the absence of evident defects. The player who wishes to claim any such defect must do so as soon as he himself has become aware of it.

I found a copy of the Laws with this wording online, and showing that FIDE issued the following Interpretation:


(FIDE Interpretation - The second sentence of Section 5 does not imply that the harm suffered by a player through an evident defect must be rectified retrospectively. For example, if a plyer shows that his opponent's clock has ceased to function, he is en title to be provided with a sound clock but not to have the clock times changed

(my emphases)

This interpretation of the former wording of the same Law shows that even had the arbiter considered the clock issue to be either an "evident defect" or equivalent to an "evident defect", then the arbiter would not have been obliged to restore all the lost time. This confirms my comments in the second para of #270: "If it is discovered mid-game that a clock is not adding increments, then the arbiter might decide, following 6.11, that retro-adjustments for previous moves were not in order ..."

This (http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/AGM/2003/clock.html) is also interesting. It concerns a case in which a player lost on time because their flag fell prematurely ( a clear case of "evident defect"), but noticed it not immediately but "a short while" (whatever that is) after. The loss stood by analogy with the previous Laws (redrafted in 1997). The comment that the change in the Laws was "the result of a possibly misguided attempt in 1997 to 'simplify' the rules so that they do not try to cover every possible situation - other situations are down to the 'arbiter'" (I assume this is the opinion of the "accredited Arbiter") is of note.

Bill previously mentioned that FIDE specifically refused to define what "evident defect" meant. But more than this, in the version of the Laws with the Interpretation above, the following occurs:


CONCLUDING NOTE

The Laws of Chess cannot, should not, cover every possible situation that might occur during play; nor do they cover every question of organisation. In most such cases a correct decision can normally be found by applying, by analogy, the provisions for ca ses of a similar type. As for the Director's duties, it can only be assumed in most cases he has the necessary competence, sound judgement, and complete objectiviy.

In the following cases the decision is left to the competition Director: a.where a player offers a draw too frequently. (Article 18c may be applied.) b.in defining what constitutes evident defects of a clock. c.the procedure where a player or team arrives latae for the start of the competition. If the delay is due to a cause for which a player or team is not responsible, it must follow from the principles of chess collaboration at least in international tour naments that concessions should be granted as far as is possible without creating eventual difficulties to other players of the organisation.

(my emphases)

The first paragraph is the forerunner of the current Preface, but lacking the "Too detailed a rule ..." bit. The inclusion of the latter backs the contention that the reason for the 1997 changes was to simplify the rules in the direction of less precise regulation of all possible situations, not more as suggested by Rincewind's anti-discretion views on the interpretation of "any evident defect".

Of the three situations discussed above, (a) is explicitly no longer a matter of arbiter discretion. (c) explicitly is still a matter of arbiter discretion. (b) is not clarified explicitly either way or not whether it is still discretional, but given that the "Too detailed a rule ..." bit indicates discretion, and that it there is no indication that FIDE's previous position has been reversed, the arbiter is entitled to assume that "evident defect" is whatever the arbiter considers it to mean, and "any evident defect" or any (stressing use!) similar construction, likewise.

Note to self: Try Google much earlier next time. :owned:

antichrist
23-01-2007, 11:17 AM
The clock of life does not add increment either - and your guillotine finish is coming and all you are doing is discussing clock increment - have you ensured your eternity?

Phil Bourke
23-01-2007, 11:49 AM
I still have vivid memories of playing in a basketball grand final where the scoreboard indicated that we were in front by one point and having the ball and less than 30 secs to play, we just passed the ball amongst ourselves and didn't even attempt a shot at goal. Imagine the horror when the referees approached us soon after the game ended to say that the person operating the scoreboard had got it wrong, and that the scorer's sheet showed us as losing by one point. Despite our protests, the result stood.
It would seem that this current case is another example of where the rules simply suck :) But that's the way it goes at times, and no amount of bleating will ever get a referee/arbiter to change their decision if they believe they have got it right. At least in chess, you can appeal to a higher authority, try horse racing, there you are judged by the person/s reporting your crime, the stewards! Just imagine how hopeless it is, trying to convince them they have got it wrong. :)

Rincewind
23-01-2007, 09:58 PM
I found a copy of the Laws with this wording online, and showing that FIDE issued the following Interpretation:



(my emphases)

This interpretation of the former wording of the same Law shows that even had the arbiter considered the clock issue to be either an "evident defect" or equivalent to an "evident defect", then the arbiter would not have been obliged to restore all the lost time. This confirms my comments in the second para of #270: "If it is discovered mid-game that a clock is not adding increments, then the arbiter might decide, following 6.11, that retro-adjustments for previous moves were not in order ..."

This (http://chess.eusa.ed.ac.uk/AGM/2003/clock.html) is also interesting. It concerns a case in which a player lost on time because their flag fell prematurely ( a clear case of "evident defect"), but noticed it not immediately but "a short while" (whatever that is) after. The loss stood by analogy with the previous Laws (redrafted in 1997). The comment that the change in the Laws was "the result of a possibly misguided attempt in 1997 to 'simplify' the rules so that they do not try to cover every possible situation - other situations are down to the 'arbiter'" (I assume this is the opinion of the "accredited Arbiter") is of note.

Bill previously mentioned that FIDE specifically refused to define what "evident defect" meant. But more than this, in the version of the Laws with the Interpretation above, the following occurs:



(my emphases)

The first paragraph is the forerunner of the current Preface, but lacking the "Too detailed a rule ..." bit. The inclusion of the latter backs the contention that the reason for the 1997 changes was to simplify the rules in the direction of less precise regulation of all possible situations, not more as suggested by Rincewind's anti-discretion views on the interpretation of "any evident defect".

Of the three situations discussed above, (a) is explicitly no longer a matter of arbiter discretion. (c) explicitly is still a matter of arbiter discretion. (b) is not clarified explicitly either way or not whether it is still discretional, but given that the "Too detailed a rule ..." bit indicates discretion, and that it there is no indication that FIDE's previous position has been reversed, the arbiter is entitled to assume that "evident defect" is whatever the arbiter considers it to mean, and "any evident defect" or any (stressing use!) similar construction, likewise.

Note to self: Try Google much earlier next time. :owned:


Does any of this apply to the current wordnig of the laws? That is, the one containing the present wording of "any evident defect"? If not, I fail to see any relevance whatsoever.

Rincewind
23-01-2007, 10:19 PM
You have not provided any evidence from any source that the word "any" can alter the properties of classification in such a way that its presence (even as a stressing term) can make something definitely a member of a class that was otherwise only dubiously or debatably so. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate such a definition.

I haven't found your attempts to knock holes in my far less unusual usage of "any" convincing thus far, but even if they succeed on some specialised technical ground of grammar, I don't care unless you can demonstrate how they actually make a difference to the meaning of the Laws through a specific example. When you write:

Your argument is busted but you are either unable to comprehend it or unwilling to yield in the face of it. My previously fully referenced entry from the OED states tyat your so-called everyday usage is usually only used in the negative or questions. Therefore your usage is unusal and my is the natural interpretation. Unless you have some evident reason for adopting an nuusual usage you should abandon your position.


... I disagree. If you could find one and make it stick, it would prove your position about the meaning of "any", although I would argue that this still does not matter because such a non-obvious understanding of "any" should not be assumed amoung readers of the Laws. If you can't find an example, that's most likely because none exists.

I do agree that "any" can be used as a stressing term, but I see no evidence at all that its use as a stressing term changes the meaning of the sentence. It just changes the intensity with which the point is expressed. "Do not bring any alcohol into this venue" means exactly the same thing about what a venue owner is allowing you to do as "Do not bring alcohol into this venue" but maybe carries a sterner tone about how it will be viewed if you don't comply. It doesn't mean you get busted for bringing in fruit juice.

The words from the dictionary which I believe I have already supplied are...

"whichever of a specified class might be chosen"

The stressing sense of an adverb you describe above (you will notice your example are in the negative) usually are only used with negative or in questions).


Curiously enough, most of the English grammar I learnt at school was when studying a foreign language (German). This debate has done nothing to convince me I missed anything very useful by not studying it beyond school level. Hasn't stopped me getting editing work, for instance. :D

That seems pretty irrelevent. Getting work for something is rarely the same as being good at something.


My sentiments exactly concerning your classification-altering definition of "any".

Not at all. As I provided this is exactly the defintion from OED and the only usual usage when "any" is used in an affirmative statment or clause.


No, because your position requires an exclusion of "absence" as a negative, which the page does not provide.

Look. This is how it works...

I find evidence for my position and you find evidence for your position. At present I have an 1 page entry from the ODEG online which confirms exactly what I was saying. But just to knock your flimsy position irrevocably you need only look at the definition at the start of the page...

"The grammatical process by which the truth of an AFFIRMATIVE (or positive) clause or sentence is denied."

absent is clearly affirming something being away. A negative use would be "not absent" meaning not away.

By your confused logic "not absent" would be an affirmative despite typical usage of the negator.


But what people understand the Laws to mean is critical to this whole debate. If there are a range of interpretations reasonably open to a person with reasonable English language skills, then one cannot blame an arbiter, acting without the benefit of a few hundred posts of internet debate, from taking any one of those interpretations.



[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]As I see it you have attempted to use standard lexographies to strengthen your case but haven't yet made anything significant stick by doing so. Furthermore, I have used evidence to strengthen my position, but largely of a different sort - for instance my comments several posts back on the previous wordings of the Laws. I have challenged your use of the "evidence" you have brought in. You haven't challenged mine at all.

What the laws actually say is more important that what one person believes them to mean.


It doesn't matter, because if something is "an evident defect of any kind" then it is also logically "an evident defect". It cannot logically be the first and not the second. Furthermore, if it's not clear whether something is "an evident defect" then it is also not clear if it is "an evident defect of any kind". Perhaps we should discuss set theory on this point; it would be less tedious and irrelevant than grammar. You would probably have a large advantage over me in that field but my position is unloseable anyway. :lol:

Obviously there are many classes of defects under certani conditions some arbiters may interpret 6.11 does not appliy to certain classes of defect. However the wording of 6.11 seems clearly to indicate to arbiters that they should not discriminate and whichever type of defect that might be evident is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 6.11. This is the usual and every day meaning of the word any ni affirmative statements such as the wording of 6.11.

Aaron Guthrie
24-01-2007, 12:26 AM
"The grammatical process by which the truth of an AFFIRMATIVE (or positive) clause or sentence is denied."

absent is clearly affirming something being away. A negative use would be "not absent" meaning not away.

By your confused logic "not absent" would be an affirmative despite typical usage of the negator.


"not absent" meaning "present"?
"not present" meaning?


Your lack of knowledge of English grammar is not my problem. To the noun absence is not negative as you are not negating anything. You are speaking in the affirmative regarding the absence of something.

Negation affirms a state of affairs, just the opposite of that which they have negated.

I think "absence" works as a negator.

"It is not the case that there are bananas in the fruit bowl"
"There is an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl"

You can negate both of these propositions the same way, thus-

"It is not not the case that there are bananas in the fruit bowl"
"There is not an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl"

I think these both mean the same thing. Perhaps "absence" can be taken as implying that there is something which is absent and that thing exists elsewhere. Then you could say "There is an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl" really means this-

"There exist bananas but they do not exist in the fruit bowl"

Rincewind
24-01-2007, 08:31 AM
"not absent" meaning "present"?
"not present" meaning?



Negation affirms a state of affairs, just the opposite of that which they have negated.

I think "absence" works as a negator.

"It is not the case that there are bananas in the fruit bowl"
"There is an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl"

You can negate both of these propositions the same way, thus-

"It is not not the case that there are bananas in the fruit bowl"
"There is not an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl"

I think these both mean the same thing. Perhaps "absence" can be taken as implying that there is something which is absent and that thing exists elsewhere. Then you could say "There is an absence of bananas in the fruit bowl" really means this-

"There exist bananas but they do not exist in the fruit bowl"


Congratulations Mangafranga you have a working knowledge of logic however from a grammar point of view you are missing the point.

By your logic present call also work as a negator and presence denies absence. (Just swap presence and absence in your post above). You can't have it both ways. :)

In grammar, negation is a construction of words such that a phrase which normally affirms is made to deny. By changnig the selection of words you can construct a sentence which is the LOGICAL negation of another sentence but by choosing different words you have not negated the phrase, you have constructed a new phrase. This is not grammatical negation. All you have is an affirmation of the logical opposite.

antichrist
24-01-2007, 10:49 AM
RW, Mangafranga sounds like one your Italian mates, you should get on well together. But seems like he has mangled the franka!

BFG
24-01-2007, 04:00 PM
Can this thread possibly still be considered on-topic?

pax
24-01-2007, 04:49 PM
Can this thread possibly still be considered on-topic?
I don't know - I only check it to measure the length of the rants between RW and KB. I'm sure nobody is actually reading them.

Garvinator
24-01-2007, 05:08 PM
I don't know - I only check it to measure the length of the rants between RW and KB. I'm sure nobody is actually reading them.
I am also sure that others arent replying because they cant be bothered receiving another 20 page diatribe.

Furthermore, how much of the last 20 or so pages is really relevant in a real life situation of an arbiter or appeals committee having to make a decision? Of course the two who are carrying on the 'debate' would say it is entirely relevant. I say it has no relevance at all :hand:

Basil
24-01-2007, 05:19 PM
I don't know - I only check it to measure the length of the rants between RW and KB. I'm sure nobody is actually reading them.
You'll have to be board #2 on rant length checking Jonathan. I'm board #1 and captain ;)

antichrist
24-01-2007, 06:04 PM
I am just monitoring till they get to the dirty names dept - then it will be interesting.

Rincewind
24-01-2007, 06:11 PM
I don't know - I only check it to measure the length of the rants between RW and KB. I'm sure nobody is actually reading them.

I would add that I am not reading my posts as carefully as can be seen from the presence of evident defects in the spelling. But the grammatical argument relates directly to the meaning of 6.11. Underpinning Kevin's postition is that an incorrect setting does not constitute what 6.11 means by "an evident defect". However by using the phrase "any evident defect" in the construct of the wording in 6.11, I am arguing that this lends an interpretation extending the applicability to all types of defects which settings can clearly be thought of as one type.

Sorry to bore, you, Garvin and Howard in the process but incorrect arguments should not go unchallenged and as I said previously to Garvin when he whinged previously, participation in this thread is optional. The only off-topic banter is comments by the uninterested about how uninterested they are. As if anyone gives a flying rat's.

Just let me and Kevin go on chatting. It keeps us off the streets.

Basil
24-01-2007, 06:32 PM
Sorry to bore, you, Garvin and Howard
You're not boring me. I am well aware that the thread is yours to do as you please. Besides I like following the occasional ping pong on grammar - it sustains hope that the art is not lost on the whole of humanity. Who knows? I might even learn something.


... incorrect arguments should not go unchallenged
If one has the energy and inclination then all power to you and Kevin.


... and as I said previously to Garvin when he whinged previously, participation in this thread is optional.
I'd like to think there's a line between serious grissling and occasional light-hearted banter.


Just let me and Kevin go on chatting. It keeps us off the streets.
Yes. But on second thoughts, perhaps you're both needed there. The streets are resplendent with half-wits who'd have a fit if their heads had to hold a fraction of what's being discussed here. But then again, it'd be a losing battle ... everybody as they were!

Spiny Norman
25-01-2007, 07:01 AM
Howard, why not add a "Ranting" team to your "Teams by Calling" thread?

But who would be game enough to name candidates? :eek:

Desmond
25-01-2007, 08:21 AM
I don't know - I only check it to measure the length of the rants between RW and KB. I'm sure nobody is actually reading them.I have been following it with some interest. IMO both have been in the lead at times, and the lead has changed hands frequently, although not for a few pages now.

arosar
25-01-2007, 11:18 AM
I'm also following the thread.

AR

Basil
25-01-2007, 11:27 AM
But who would be game enough to name candidates? :eek:
:oops: :whistle: :uhoh:

antichrist
25-01-2007, 11:39 AM
I thought KB cheated by calling in Mangafranka

Kevin Bonham
25-01-2007, 06:14 PM
Furthermore, how much of the last 20 or so pages is really relevant in a real life situation of an arbiter or appeals committee having to make a decision? Of course the two who are carrying on the 'debate' would say it is entirely relevant. I say it has no relevance at all

Actually I am also saying all the grammar stuff (including mine) is irrelevant to making a decision. I'm just defending that view at rather more length than an arbiter or appeals committee would bother doing. :D


Your argument is busted but you are either unable to comprehend it or unwilling to yield in the face of it. My previously fully referenced entry from the OED states tyat your so-called everyday usage is usually only used in the negative or questions. Therefore your usage is unusal and my is the natural interpretation. Unless you have some evident reason for adopting an nuusual usage you should abandon your position.

You have not demonstrated my usage to be unusual to any degree that creates a concrete difference in interpretation of different cases. Therefore, there is nothing significant to abandon, even if you were to convince me there is some nth-degree grammar-pedantry issue with my use of "any".


The words from the dictionary which I believe I have already supplied are...

"whichever of a specified class might be chosen"

Exactly, and this does not make things that were previously debatably a member of a class suddenly become definite members of a class. If you're not previously sure something is a member of a class you cannot choose it as if it was a definite member. This is fatal to your usage of "any", even if you succeed in knocking over mine.


That seems pretty irrelevent. Getting work for something is rarely the same as being good at something.

Would you say reappointment was a more reliable indicator? :lol:


absent is clearly affirming something being away.

False, because "away" affirms the thing exists somewhere else. "Absent" can also mean the thing does not exist - this is the negative use I had in mind (and the use of "absence" in the Laws, since it would make little sense for a clock to have a defect which existed but was away!)


A negative use would be "not absent" meaning not away.

That sounds more like a double negative usage to me!


By your confused logic "not absent" would be an affirmative despite typical usage of the negator.

No, it is a double negative, whatever its affirmative consequences.


What the laws actually say is more important that what one person believes them to mean.

If that belief is reasonable for the Laws' intended audience, then the Laws in their current deliberately vague form do effectively say that the thing believed is an option.


Obviously there are many classes of defects under certani conditions some arbiters may interpret 6.11 does not appliy to certain classes of defect. However the wording of 6.11 seems clearly to indicate to arbiters that they should not discriminate and whichever type of defect that might be evident is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 6.11. This is the usual and every day meaning of the word any ni affirmative statements such as the wording of 6.11.

What seems clear to you need not seem clear to others. I agree that once an arbiter has formed their own mental list of what they consider to be "evident defects" of the clock, the wording requires them not to discriminate between them. However, if they are not sure whether something is an evident defect or not, such a restriction provides no help in making a decision.

Rincewind
25-01-2007, 10:26 PM
You have not demonstrated my usage to be unusual to any degree that creates a concrete difference in interpretation of different cases. Therefore, there is nothing significant to abandon, even if you were to convince me there is some nth-degree grammar-pedantry issue with my use of "any".

If you don;t think there is a concrete difference between usages why do you argue so strongly.


Exactly, and this does not make things that were previously debatably a member of a class suddenly become definite members of a class. If you're not previously sure something is a member of a class you cannot choose it as if it was a definite member. This is fatal to your usage of "any", even if you succeed in knocking over mine.

Not at all. What we talking about are subsets. Certain arbiters may interpret 6.11 to not include clock settings as defects of the clock. But as the settings are stored within the clock there is nothing else the defect could be with. I still claim the wording of "any" mean to include all possible subsets. To my mind this must include settings.


Would you say reappointment was a more reliable indicator? :lol:

I was going to say margnialy but after considering the cases of Bush and Howard I'm going to go with no.


False, because "away" affirms the thing exists somewhere else. "Absent" can also mean the thing does not exist - this is the negative use I had in mind (and the use of "absence" in the Laws, since it would make little sense for a clock to have a defect which existed but was away!)

That sounds more like a double negative usage to me!

No, it is a double negative, whatever its affirmative consequences.

You are cnofusing logic with grammar. Grammar is concerned with sentence structure. Absence is no more negative in grammar as presence is. They are both affirming a state and not denying the opposite.


If that belief is reasonable for the Laws' intended audience, then the Laws in their current deliberately vague form do effectively say that the thing believed is an option.

What thing believed?


What seems clear to you need not seem clear to others. I agree that once an arbiter has formed their own mental list of what they consider to be "evident defects" of the clock, the wording requires them not to discriminate between them. However, if they are not sure whether something is an evident defect or not, such a restriction provides no help in making a decision.

Well that then requires you to show that under the laws of ches that an incorrect setting cannot be classed as a defect of the clock. Good luck.

ElevatorEscapee
25-01-2007, 11:20 PM
If this thread had been analogue instead of digital, it would have wound down by now... :P

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2007, 01:05 AM
If you don;t think there is a concrete difference between usages why do you argue so strongly.

Who cares? I am glad you agree that I argue strongly. :lol:


Not at all. What we talking about are subsets. Certain arbiters may interpret 6.11 to not include clock settings as defects of the clock. But as the settings are stored within the clock there is nothing else the defect could be with.

That's like saying if a bad driver is in a car and the car crashes, then it must be a defect of the car. After all, the driver was stored within the car during its journey and momentarily before, just as the settings were stored within the clock during the game.


I was going to say margnialy but after considering the cases of Bush and Howard I'm going to go with no.

Anomolous cases since they were appointed by the people.


Absence is no more negative in grammar as presence is. They are both affirming a state and not denying the opposite.

No evidence provided. Since your definition of "absent" included only one of its two main meanings, and the wrong one at that, don't expect to be taken on faith.


What thing believed?

Any belief that a reader, informed about chess laws and the meanings of specialised terms used within the arbiting community, but not necessarily with professor-level grammar skills, can reasonably read into the Laws.


Well that then requires you to show that under the laws of ches that an incorrect setting cannot be classed as a defect of the clock. Good luck.

Does not follow at all from what I said.

Rincewind
26-01-2007, 08:26 AM
Who cares? I am glad you agree that I argue strongly. :lol:

A poor attempt at sidestpping a question so perhaps you don't argue as strongly as you believe.

So again, if you don't think there is a concrete difference between usages why do you argue so obstinately?


That's like saying if a bad driver is in a car and the car crashes, then it must be a defect of the car. After all, the driver was stored within the car during its journey and momentarily before, just as the settings were stored within the clock during the game.

Not at all. In the traffic code there is a clear distinctino between the driver and the car. Mechanical failure is distinct from driver fault. In the laws of chess there is no distinction anywhere. (other than the rapid laws which only serves to underline the absense of any distniction in the classical laws)


Anomolous cases since they were appointed by the people.

And what sort of life forms appointed you?

The case is nomolous since such decisions are based more on popularity than they are no actual ability.


No evidence provided. Since your definition of "absent" included only one of its two main meanings, and the wrong one at that, don't expect to be taken on faith.

Grammar is the study of sentence structure as such it is the structure of the sentence which is important. For example you can write many sentences with the same logical meaning but the grammatical stuctures different. You can write ni the passive voice, active voice, 1st person, 3rd person and writing a sentence ni the negative is exactly the same.

(1) The teacher is absent.
(2) The teacher is not present.

The meaning is the same but the sentence structure is different. One is written in the affirmative the other in the negative. That's why the defintion of negation is (again)

The grammatical process by which the truth of an AFFIRMATIVE (or positive) clause or sentence is denied.

In sentence one there is no denial of a positive clause. If you remove the word "absent" the sentence has lost it meaning. In sentence two you are denynig a positive clause and by removing the word "not" you have the affirmative sentence.

According to your set of values you believe the onus is on me to supply a defintion of grammatical negation which specifically denies that "absence" is a negative term and therefore does not constitute negation. This is of course a ridiculous position. Dictionaries generally define what something is, not what it is not. However, I would point out that the concept of words with opposite meaning are not unique to absent and present. There are a whole host of opposites which are taught fro primary school onwards. Clearly, had the use of words with opposite meaning played a part in the grammatical process of negation then it would have been mentioned in a dictionary which defines the term in a grammatical context. I await your reference to this entry but I'm not holding my breath.


Any belief that a reader, informed about chess laws and the meanings of specialised terms used within the arbiting community, but not necessarily with professor-level grammar skills, can reasonably read into the Laws.

You cannot escape the correct meaning of words by claiming the argument is too complicated. Just because the concept of grammatical negation seems beyond you does not give you license to freely interpret the laws in any way you see fit. In fact the opposite is probably true and your interpertation should be view with caution.


Does not follow at all from what I said.

We have been through all that before. The classical laws makes no distinction between the clock and its settings. The rapids laws says that under certain circumstances a player cannot complain about a "clock setting". The logical conclusion is that under the classical laws the clock settings are by the rules which govern the clock. Therefore, under the classical laws a defect of the clock should be interpreted to include defects in it setting.

So, in your view, which classical law allows a player to make a claim about a clock setting?

Phil Bourke
26-01-2007, 09:06 AM
Is there a forum rule about threads that develop into an exchange between two people being transferred to private messages rather than taking up space on the forum?
If not, there should be :)

Rincewind
26-01-2007, 09:12 AM
Is there a forum rule about threads that develop into an exchange between two people being transferred to private messages rather than taking up space on the forum?
If not, there should be :)

There were comments just a few posts u[p which indicated that while the majority of the posts are by two people, there are more than that number taking an interest in the exchange.

Those uninterested in the exchange are not required to read or participate.

Though I'd be interested in your definition of the word "space" in the context of what it is exactly you claim we are "taking up".

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2007, 10:14 AM
A poor attempt at sidestpping a question so perhaps you don't argue as strongly as you believe.

The question of my motives was not relevant to the debate so I treated it with the flippancy it deserved.


So again, if you don't think there is a concrete difference between usages why do you argue so [misleading word deleted - KB]?

Who knows, who cares? Perhaps because my views were subject to unsuccessful attacks which I felt inclined to dispose of irrespective of their concrete significance to the debate.


Not at all. In the traffic code there is a clear distinctino between the driver and the car. Mechanical failure is distinct from driver fault. In the laws of chess there is no distinction anywhere. (other than the rapid laws which only serves to underline the absense of any distniction in the classical laws)

The point about what the traffic code says is irrelevant, since the purpose of the example is to show that something being contained within something else does not prove that its failures are defects of the something else. The traffic code recognises the reality of this distinction. That the Laws of Chess only do so explicitly within the Rapid section in no way undermines its reality and applicability to the rest of the Laws. ;)


And what sort of life forms appointed you?

The case is nomolous since such decisions are based more on popularity than they are no actual ability.

Interesting question. Suffice to say that in one case the life forms (?) that appointed me and reappointed me did so in spite of the fact that I was a public opponent of their funding supply. So much for popularity. :lol:


Grammar is the study of sentence structure as such it is the structure of the sentence which is important.

In this debate, only if it contributes to a concrete difference in meaning, which should be demonstrable with examples.


For example you can write many sentences with the same logical meaning but the grammatical stuctures different.

Indeed, and there would have been many different grammatical structures in which "the absence of any evident defect" could have been written that would carry the same meaning while avoiding whatever apparently irrelevant points about grammar you cared to offer. I have given some options previously and asked you to demonstrate a difference in meaning. No evidence of difference was given.

Your grammatical claims in the last post are not backed by evidence so I am entitled to disregard them anytime I see fit anyway. On account of you offering the wrong meaning of "absent" and a bizarre usage of "any" I can't take anything you say in this field on trust as it applies to this particular situation.


According to your set of values you believe the onus is on me to supply a defintion of grammatical negation which specifically denies that "absence" is a negative term and therefore does not constitute negation. This is of course a ridiculous position. Dictionaries generally define what something is, not what it is not.

In that case you should be able to point to an exhaustive definition that excludes "absence", but the one you did point to included a number of qualifiers of the "usually" type and examples that differed from the main ones, and hence did not do so.


You cannot escape the correct meaning of words by claiming the argument is too complicated. Just because the concept of grammatical negation seems beyond you does not give you license to freely interpret the laws in any way you see fit. In fact the opposite is probably true and your interpertation should be view with caution.

This claim is missing the point of the quote it was written in reply to. The point of my comment was not solely about my interpretations but about the reasonable interpretations of others. Suppose you succeeded in convincing me that your usage of "any" is correct (you would probably have more chance of convincing me of the existence of Octopus giganteus, but for the sake of argument ...) While you would then have altered how I would apply the Laws, you would not have changed my view that someone interpreting the Laws the way I have done is interpreting them in a reasonable fashion that could not be reasonably overturned on appeal. This is why I agree with Garvin's point that this is all irrelevant to the assessment of the decisions made. They were reasonable under the circumstances and given the timeframe.


We have been through all that before. The classical laws makes no distinction between the clock and its settings. The rapids laws says that under certain circumstances a player cannot complain about a "clock setting". The logical conclusion is that under the classical laws the clock settings are by the rules which govern the clock. Therefore, under the classical laws a defect of the clock should be interpreted to include defects in it setting.

Again does not address my comment, so I'll repeat it: What seems clear to you need not seem clear to others. I agree that once an arbiter has formed their own mental list of what they consider to be "evident defects" of the clock, the wording requires them not to discriminate between them. However, if they are not sure whether something is an evident defect or not, such a restriction provides no help in making a decision.

This was written in response to the bit where you wrote: Obviously there are many classes of defects under certani conditions some arbiters may interpret 6.11 does not appliy to certain classes of defect. However the wording of 6.11 seems clearly to indicate to arbiters that they should not discriminate and whichever type of defect that might be evident is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 6.11. This is the usual and every day meaning of the word any ni affirmative statements such as the wording of 6.11.


So, in your view, which classical law allows a player to make a claim about a clock setting?

6.13b entitles a player to stop the clock to seek the arbiter's assistance. The arbiter is then compelled to take action under 13.2.

Spiny Norman
26-01-2007, 11:14 AM
Post #400 ... I'm following this thread closely too ... started talking about clocks, rules of chess, scope of the arbiter's role and discretion ... now reduced to arguing the meaning of the word "any" ... when I tell people this, they just shake their heads and laugh. ;)

Phil Bourke
26-01-2007, 11:32 AM
Though I'd be interested in your definition of the word "space" in the context of what it is exactly you claim we are "taking up".
Oh no :) I am not getting caught in any debate on meanings of words and context :)

Spiny Norman
26-01-2007, 11:42 AM
Oh no :) I am not getting caught in any debate on meanings of words and context :)
Coward ... :uhoh:

Phil Bourke
26-01-2007, 11:49 AM
Coward ... :uhoh:
Well observed :P
The only defence I can muster is that discretion is the better part of valour. :whistle:

Rincewind
26-01-2007, 12:03 PM
The question of my motives was not relevant to the debate so I treated it with the flippancy it deserved.

I strongly disagree. Someone who is prone to argue out of obstinence is just wastnig my time. This is very relevent to my inclination to continue trying to convince someone of a position which they already hold.


Who knows, who cares? Perhaps because my views were subject to unsuccessful attacks which I felt inclined to dispose of irrespective of their concrete significance to the debate.

This is true but as per above it helps me to decide whether if is worth continue because you actually do hold a wrong-headed view or if you are just playings Devil's advocate.


The point about what the traffic code says is irrelevant, since the purpose of the example is to show that something being contained within something else does not prove that its failures are defects of the something else. The traffic code recognises the reality of this distinction. That the Laws of Chess only do so explicitly within the Rapid section in no way undermines its reality and applicability to the rest of the Laws. ;)

I disagree that context is unimportant in this case. You are arguing cross purposes and trying to claim that a car containing a person is the same as a clock contaning a setting. A setting is a state of the clock. The equivalent in motoring terms would be the gear that is engaged in the transmission of the vehicle.


Interesting question. Suffice to say that in one case the life forms (?) that appointed me and reappointed me did so in spite of the fact that I was a public opponent of their funding supply. So much for popularity. :lol:

We could go on speculating for ever. The fact remains neither of us are trained grammarists but the definition of grammatical negation seems uneqivocal to me. Unless you can come up with a defintion that supports your position I would suggest you score a fail on this point.


In this debate, only if it contributes to a concrete difference in meaning, which should be demonstrable with examples.

Example are an unnecessary distraction in already a long and convoluted discussion. Come up with an entry in a standard text which supports your position or don't. But without it you can't claim common usage to be on your side.


Indeed, and there would have been many different grammatical structures in which "the absence of any evident defect" could have been written that would carry the same meaning while avoiding whatever apparently irrelevant points about grammar you cared to offer. I have given some options previously and asked you to demonstrate a difference in meaning. No evidence of difference was given.

Your grammatical claims in the last post are not backed by evidence so I am entitled to disregard them anytime I see fit anyway. On account of you offering the wrong meaning of "absent" and a bizarre usage of "any" I can't take anything you say in this field on trust as it applies to this particular situation.

So far very little of your posts are actually backed by evidence in the garmmatical commonent of the argument the sum total of evidence frmo your side has been zero. The Bonham Dictionary of Common English is not submittable.


In that case you should be able to point to an exhaustive definition that excludes "absence", but the one you did point to included a number of qualifiers of the "usually" type and examples that differed from the main ones, and hence did not do so.

You can bury your head in the sand if you like but unless you can cmoe up with some evidence that supports you position (in the same way that I have mine) that is all you can do. The use of an opposite in an affirmative sentence is not grammatical negation. Nothing in the defintion I supplied you from a standard text even hints that it might be. Your position is just based on the confusion between negation in a logical sense and negation in a grammatical sense.


This claim is missing the point of the quote it was written in reply to. The point of my comment was not solely about my interpretations but about the reasonable interpretations of others. Suppose you succeeded in convincing me that your usage of "any" is correct (you would probably have more chance of convincing me of the existence of Octopus giganteus, but for the sake of argument ...) While you would then have altered how I would apply the Laws, you would not have changed my view that someone interpreting the Laws the way I have done is interpreting them in a reasonable fashion that could not be reasonably overturned on appeal. This is why I agree with Garvin's point that this is all irrelevant to the assessment of the decisions made. They were reasonable under the circumstances and given the timeframe.

So far the "reasonable" interpretation you offer is the same as your interpretation. I would argue that the interpretation that is most reasonable would be supported by standard dictionary definitions of the words chosen by those drafting the laws. Any such argument as to reasonable intpretation should be supportable by references to standard language references. As such you should couch all future claims in this way.


Again does not address my comment, so I'll repeat it: What seems clear to you need not seem clear to others. I agree that once an arbiter has formed their own mental list of what they consider to be "evident defects" of the clock, the wording requires them not to discriminate between them. However, if they are not sure whether something is an evident defect or not, such a restriction provides no help in making a decision.

This was written in response to the bit where you wrote: Obviously there are many classes of defects under certani conditions some arbiters may interpret 6.11 does not appliy to certain classes of defect. However the wording of 6.11 seems clearly to indicate to arbiters that they should not discriminate and whichever type of defect that might be evident is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 6.11. This is the usual and every day meaning of the word any ni affirmative statements such as the wording of 6.11.

There are a number of types of defects. Mechanical, electrical, setting, power, display, etc. Some arbiters may argue that the 6.11 is not intended to apply to all classes for whatever reason. However the choice of wording "any evident defect" means regardless of type. All types of defects are admissable.


6.13b entitles a player to stop the clock to seek the arbiter's assistance. The arbiter is then compelled to take action under 13.2.

Ha. 13.2 is the very loosely worded

The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition.

If you pin your argument on that you are getting desperate. There is nothing there that hints that an incorrect clock setting should be covered by that law.

Rincewind
26-01-2007, 12:06 PM
Post #400 ... I'm following this thread closely too ... started talking about clocks, rules of chess, scope of the arbiter's role and discretion ... now reduced to arguing the meaning of the word "any" ... when I tell people this, they just shake their heads and laugh. ;)

Me too. ;)

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2007, 08:10 PM
I strongly disagree. Someone who is prone to argue out of obstinence is just wastnig my time. This is very relevent to my inclination to continue trying to convince someone of a position which they already hold.

I never argue purely for the sake of it - that's too much of a waste of my time. But also, convincing the person I'm debating with isn't always high on my priorities. Sometimes I'm concerned with convincing the audience, and at other times I don't figure there is much of an audience. The most consistent pattern in debates is that I will continue to challenge opposing claims I believe to be false or inadequately substantiated - until the other party loses interest, stops raising new points, gets unacceptably personal or is clearly too clueless to be worth the bother.


This is true but as per above it helps me to decide whether if is worth continue because you actually do hold a wrong-headed view or if you are just playings Devil's advocate.

You haven't eliminated all possibilities there. To eliminate the one that is actually worth the time of day, I am definitely not playing devil's advocate over the thread as a whole.

Rather I am defending a fellow arbiter whose decision has been claimed to be improper using evidence I find to be nowhere near convincing on numerous different scores. I don't defend arbiters or organisers whose actions I consider clearly wrong, but I do find people are too prone in general to declare organisers or arbiters to have acted wrongly when their actions were open options. I find similar things in various other walks of life too.


You are arguing cross purposes and trying to claim that a car containing a person is the same as a clock contaning a setting. A setting is a state of the clock.

"Set" (not the particular setting) is a state of the clock, just as "occupied" (not the particular person) is a state of a vehicle. But in any case I would be just as happy with something along the lines of this view of yours (provided the car is a manual!):


The equivalent in motoring terms would be the gear that is engaged in the transmission of the vehicle.

... since if an accident is caused by the driver's choice of an incorrect gear (or, and to expand your analogy, by someone pressing the accelerator instead of the brake) then this is not a defect of the vehicle. It is, again, a mistake by the controller.


We could go on speculating for ever. The fact remains neither of us are trained grammarists but the definition of grammatical negation seems uneqivocal to me.

My interpretation of the long page you sent me is presumably very different to yours then.


Unless you can come up with a defintion that supports your position I would suggest you score a fail on this point.

A point that even if I fail on it has no demonstrated relevance to concrete examples in this case, no likely effect, and little likely use in life outside of extremely specialised grammar circles. What a petrifying thing to potentially miss out on.


Example are an unnecessary distraction in already a long and convoluted discussion.

Looks to me like an excuse for being unable to give any. Examples, or at least proof that examples must exist, are totally necessary to your claim that there is a salient difference between "any evident defect" and "an evident defect".


So far very little of your posts are actually backed by evidence in the garmmatical commonent of the argument the sum total of evidence frmo your side has been zero. The Bonham Dictionary of Common English is not submittable.

In many cases I looked things up in my OMED or other dictionaries, but didn't bother to cite, having noticed you were not citing the vast bulk of your claims and noting that I was getting no challenges from you for failing to back them. An example of this is my correction of your incorrect single-sense use of "evident". I was 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% confident you were totally wrong about that one even without checking, but checked anyway.


You can bury your head in the sand if you like but unless you can cmoe up with some evidence that supports you position (in the same way that I have mine) that is all you can do. The use of an opposite in an affirmative sentence is not grammatical negation. Nothing in the defintion I supplied you from a standard text even hints that it might be. Your position is just based on the confusion between negation in a logical sense and negation in a grammatical sense.

No evidence provided for these claims, therefore ignored.


So far the "reasonable" interpretation you offer is the same as your interpretation. I would argue that the interpretation that is most reasonable would be supported by standard dictionary definitions of the words chosen by those drafting the laws. Any such argument as to reasonable intpretation should be supportable by references to standard language references. As such you should couch all future claims in this way.

"Most" reasonable is not relevant. Reasonable at all is fully sufficient for my purposes. The burden is on you to prove complete unreasonability. Furthermore, your classification-transcending usage of "any" is not a standard dictionary definition at all. I am yet to see evidence that any other sentient being uses the word in such a fashion.


There are a number of types of defects. Mechanical, electrical, setting, power, display, etc. Some arbiters may argue that the 6.11 is not intended to apply to all classes for whatever reason. However the choice of wording "any evident defect" means regardless of type. All types of defects are admissable.

Previously addressed more than to my satisfaction.


Ha. 13.2 [..]

If you pin your argument on that you are getting desperate.

If you think I'm getting desperate then you are getting desperate. :lol:


There is nothing there that hints that an incorrect clock setting should be covered by that law.

As previously mentioned, there is also nothing in the Laws that explicitly prevents the clock for a two-player match from being placed on the opposite side of the room and the players being required to run to it to press it between moves. Many things are so bleeding obvious, and so widely accepted as such, that there is no purpose in clearly regulating them. Catch-alls that can be pointed to as empowerment clauses are perfectly sufficient for such cases.

Garvinator
26-01-2007, 08:49 PM
As previously mentioned, there is also nothing in the Laws that explicitly prevents the clock for a two-player match from being placed on the opposite side of the room and the players being required to run to it to press it between moves.
For those who believe that chess is not a sport due to only a small physical requirement, here is the solution ;)

Rincewind
27-01-2007, 09:54 AM
I never argue purely for the sake of it - that's too much of a waste of my time. But also, convincing the person I'm debating with isn't always high on my priorities. Sometimes I'm concerned with convincing the audience, and at other times I don't figure there is much of an audience. The most consistent pattern in debates is that I will continue to challenge opposing claims I believe to be false or inadequately substantiated - until the other party loses interest, stops raising new points, gets unacceptably personal or is clearly too clueless to be worth the bother.

And if none of those 4 triggers occurs? ...

For eaxmple what would happen if Kevni Bonham was to debate with alternative universe Kevin Bonham, who was the same in every way except that he had an opposing claim on one issue? :)

Of course I'm just being facetious but I will continue to debate if that is your position.


You haven't eliminated all possibilities there. To eliminate the one that is actually worth the time of day, I am definitely not playing devil's advocate over the thread as a whole.

Rather I am defending a fellow arbiter whose decision has been claimed to be improper using evidence I find to be nowhere near convincing on numerous different scores. I don't defend arbiters or organisers whose actions I consider clearly wrong, but I do find people are too prone in general to declare organisers or arbiters to have acted wrongly when their actions were open options. I find similar things in various other walks of life too.

It seems to me that with debate people in general invest too much sentiment ni their position making it impossible to convince the opponent to accept your argument as valid. The only ones likely to be swayed are the observers who may be swinging on the basis of the arguments.


"Set" (not the particular setting) is a state of the clock, just as "occupied" (not the particular person) is a state of a vehicle. But in any case I would be just as happy with something along the lines of this view of yours (provided the car is a manual!):

An important difference is the settings are completely contained within the clock and finite in extent. When manufactured is made so that nothing needs to be added and it can any of a finite number of settings or states. It is exacttly like a car with a gears, just it has more of them.

A occupant of a car is totally separate from the car and indeed may have been born before or after the car. The manufacturer designs the car for the use of the occupant. So your analogy is a long way from the mark.


... since if an accident is caused by the driver's choice of an incorrect gear (or, and to expand your analogy, by someone pressing the accelerator instead of the brake) then this is not a defect of the vehicle. It is, again, a mistake by the controller.

Yes but if it is not the responsibility of the driver to select the gear then if he presses the accellerator and the car goes backwards instead of forwards we could correctly claim there was a fault with the car as it was not in the correct gear.


My interpretation of the long page you sent me is presumably very different to yours then.

Yes and wrong as I pointed out. There is nothing to suggest that substituting words of opposite meaning constitute grammatical negation. However should you find evidence somewhere that it does then I will happily review my position. Until then it is just your opinion vs the people at Oxford.


A point that even if I fail on it has no demonstrated relevance to concrete examples in this case, no likely effect, and little likely use in life outside of extremely specialised grammar circles. What a petrifying thing to potentially miss out on.

The relevence is clear to me and clearly worth the effort of your attempted obscuring of the debate.


Looks to me like an excuse for being unable to give any. Examples, or at least proof that examples must exist, are totally necessary to your claim that there is a salient difference between "any evident defect" and "an evident defect".

The appearence of things to you seems to dominate your debate. Perhaps you should try for objective support for your position.

The writers of the laws do not know how the laws might be interpreted by every reader. Therefore I believe the selection of words is telling of their intent and particularly so in this case. "Any" in that construct serves to nuderline that no subclasses should be excluded.


In many cases I looked things up in my OMED or other dictionaries, but didn't bother to cite, having noticed you were not citing the vast bulk of your claims and noting that I was getting no challenges from you for failing to back them. An example of this is my correction of your incorrect single-sense use of "evident". I was 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999% confident you were totally wrong about that one even without checking, but checked anyway.

I have no idea what you are claiming here. Please provide a link to the post in question.


No evidence provided for these claims, therefore ignored.

You are just flying ni the face of convention and trynig to substantiate the that the position of one K. Bonham is self sufficient. Evidence again that your argument is just supported by your opinion.


"Most" reasonable is not relevant. Reasonable at all is fully sufficient for my purposes. The burden is on you to prove complete unreasonability. Furthermore, your classification-transcending usage of "any" is not a standard dictionary definition at all. I am yet to see evidence that any other sentient being uses the word in such a fashion.

Well I can only point you to the verbatim citation of dictionaries it it up to you to believe them.


Previously addressed more than to my satisfaction.

Solely.


If you think I'm getting desperate then you are getting desperate. :lol:

Hardly. as pointed out 13.2 gives no mention to clocks or settnig and yest All of law 6 is entirely about clocks and as I have already demonstrated serves perfectly well in handling defects in the settings as well as in the mechanics, electronices and every other aspect of the clock.

By the same one could arbitrarily say that Law 6 does not cover battery failure and that should be handled by 13.2. The world wouldn't stop but it would not be a reasonable position.


As previously mentioned, there is also nothing in the Laws that explicitly prevents the clock for a two-player match from being placed on the opposite side of the room and the players being required to run to it to press it between moves. Many things are so bleeding obvious, and so widely accepted as such, that there is no purpose in clearly regulating them. Catch-alls that can be pointed to as empowerment clauses are perfectly sufficient for such cases.

Actually, 6.4 covers this.

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2007, 11:36 AM
The relevence is clear to me and clearly worth the effort of your attempted obscuring of the debate.A case of the pot talking to the kettle.

By the same one could arbitrarily say that Law 6 does not cover battery failure and that should be handled by 13.2. The world wouldn't stop but it would not be a reasonable position.No, one couldnt say Artilce 6 does not cover battery failure.

Just like the Article 6.11 (and its predecessors) has always covered the situation where an analogue clock stops because it has wound down, the same is true for a digital clock that stops due to batteries going flat.

Kevin Bonham
27-01-2007, 04:10 PM
And if none of those 4 triggers occurs? ...

For eaxmple what would happen if Kevni Bonham was to debate with alternative universe Kevin Bonham, who was the same in every way except that he had an opposing claim on one issue? :)

If one of them had a much stronger claim than the other the debate wouldn't last very long before the two agreed. If not, it would end eventually by the two covering all relevant points. I have had many long debates that seem to be rising in detail without limit but eventually compact down in that manner.


It seems to me that with debate people in general invest too much sentiment ni their position making it impossible to convince the opponent to accept your argument as valid.

Often the case, but not necessarily.


An important difference is the settings are completely contained within the clock and finite in extent. When manufactured is made so that nothing needs to be added and it can any of a finite number of settings or states. It is exacttly like a car with a gears, just it has more of them.

A occupant of a car is totally separate from the car and indeed may have been born before or after the car. The manufacturer designs the car for the use of the occupant. So your analogy is a long way from the mark.

Every attempt you make to poke holes in my analogy (originally intended as a flippant one liner by the way, so if it isn't absolutely exact then I shan't be mortified) is only producing analogies from your side that again support my case. Both the clock and the car are designed for use of humans who operate them. Following your version above, the human entering the data is the "driver" of the clock.

In this case the human whose driving caused the accident was the player himself (albeit in unnecessarily himself addressing the car having been left in a precarious position), compounded by him failing to notice he was running off the road in a situation where most drivers would have done so. ;)


Yes but if it is not the responsibility of the driver to select the gear then if he presses the accellerator and the car goes backwards instead of forwards we could correctly claim there was a fault with the car as it was not in the correct gear.

Irrelevant. The case of an incorrect setting is analogous to pressing the wrong thing in a car, not pressing the right thing and it not functioning as intended.


Yes and wrong as I pointed out. There is nothing to suggest that substituting words of opposite meaning constitute grammatical negation. However should you find evidence somewhere that it does then I will happily review my position. Until then it is just your opinion vs the people at Oxford.

Previously dealt with to my satisfaction.


The relevence is clear to me and clearly worth the effort of your attempted obscuring of the debate.

No evidence provided of me attempting to obscure.

Actually in light of the above I now belatedly declare my sincere view that your use of "any" has been obfuscation from the start. I offer no evidence for this claim (since, given the above, I do not have to) and leave it for the consideration of any surviving readers. :lol:


The appearence of things to you seems to dominate your debate.

You have used loads of similar comments, eg "However the wording of 6.11 seems clearly to indicate to arbiters", and "The relevance is clear to me", and "Therefore I believe" (the latter two in this reply alone) just for starters.


Perhaps you should try for objective support for your position.

I have provided plenty by reference to previous drafts of the Laws. The silence on points thus made was deafening.


The writers of the laws do not know how the laws might be interpreted by every reader. Therefore I believe the selection of words is telling of their intent and particularly so in this case.

Totally implausible. The writers of the Laws would not have precisely regulated something by use of an obscure grammatical consideration that is evidently not accepted by multiple arbiters (eg my interpretation is also Gijssen's). If they had intended setting errors to be always treated as defects of the clock by arbiters they would have spelt it out loud and clear.


"Any" in that construct serves to nuderline that no subclasses should be excluded.

Previously addressed. Unless you first prove that setting errors constitute a subclass of (evident defects of a clock), and do so without any reference to your use of the word "any", then your argument isn't off the ground.


I have no idea what you are claiming here. Please provide a link to the post in question.

Sorry, I meant your incorrect use of "absent", and wrote "evident" by mistake. Actually Mangafranga disposed of it first in post 377.


You are just flying ni the face of convention and trynig to substantiate the that the position of one K. Bonham is self sufficient. Evidence again that your argument is just supported by your opinion.

Again no evidence for the premise. If the unsubstantiated criticisms continue in such volume I will simply put a block reference to my disregarding of them at the start or end of my posts in future.


Well I can only point you to the verbatim citation of dictionaries it it up to you to believe them.

I do not recall any citation of "any" you have pointed to that justifies your use of the word to shift classification boundaries.


Solely.

I don't notice howls of outrage from other debaters supporting your position on the matter. Of course, if the two of us are the only ones left who care about that matter then I don't expect you to be satisfied.

(skipped matter addressed by Bill to my satisfaction.)


Actually, 6.4 covers this.

:D

I assume you're being flippant. 6.4 does not stop the arbiter from placing the clock in the manner I described.

Basil
27-01-2007, 04:36 PM
A case of the pot talking to the kettle.
Point of order, Bill. I have banned this in debate. It's known as Mac's Rule. Previously irrelevancies, contortions etc. do not prevent the original offendee from calling others on it.
(I have no opinion as the merits of the original or subsequent counter-claim BTW)

Spiny Norman
27-01-2007, 04:46 PM
These blitz posts attempting to gain time on your clock as the time control looms are causing noticable deterioration of your respective positions.

Besides, despite advertising to the contrary, this thread features a guillotine finish, as AC will be back from suspension soon and will be adjudicating.

Any appeals claiming incorrect setting of your clock, or that you weren't notified of the quillotine finish, will be viewed dimly and you'll be immediately disqualified.

I'm calling for a sealed move (and adjournment).

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2007, 04:48 PM
These blitz posts attempting to gain time on your clock as the time control looms are causing noticable deterioration of your respective positions.

Besides, despite advertising to the contrary, this thread features a guillotine finish, as AC will be back from suspension soon and will be adjudicating.

Any appeals claiming incorrect setting of your clock, or that you weren't notified of the quillotine finish, will be viewed dimly and you'll be immediately disqualified.

I'm calling for a sealed move (and adjournment).I suspect any decision by A/C would be overturned on appeal. ;)

Bill Gletsos
27-01-2007, 04:50 PM
Point of order, Bill. I have banned this in debate. It's known as Mac's Rule. Previously irrelevancies, contortions etc. do not prevent the original offendee from calling others on it.
(I have no opinion as the merits of the original or subsequent counter-claim BTW)Your post is ruled out of order. ;)

Rincewind
27-01-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm calling for a sealed move (and adjournment).

Me too, well the adjournment bit anyway. I'm off to Fremantle for a few days. :)

Garvinator
12-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Apologies for re-starting this thread :uhoh:

Been thinking a bit about this with respect to arbiters using pre-programmed settings on dgts.

Some time controls are already pre-set on dgt's and all arbiter needs to do is use the setting number for that time control.

So if an arbiter uses one of the pre-set time controls and the clock has a problem similar to what has been described in this thread, would that be an evident defect?

Basil
12-02-2007, 05:38 PM
Apologies for re-starting this thread :uhoh:
Yoou didn't restart it. There was heaps of time left thanks to the increment.

Basil
17-02-2007, 03:22 PM
FWIW - In my game last week, I noticed that the clock wasn't adding increment. (I realised afterwards that I had seen two people playing blitz before the start of the games on that board, but I hadn't consciously 'clocked it' :eek:)

51 and 52 mins left on a 60/30 game.

I asked my opponent if I could stop the clock (his move). He agreed. I told him the situation. We had the arbiter reset the clock with increment and the clocks remained on 51 - 52 mins respectively.

As I said, FWIW.

Garvinator
17-02-2007, 03:31 PM
Yoou didn't restart it. There was heaps of time left thanks to the increment.
seems my question was too hot to handle ;) ;) ;) ;) :uhoh:

Kevin Bonham
17-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Sorry, missed it.


So if an arbiter uses one of the pre-set time controls and the clock has a problem similar to what has been described in this thread, would that be an evident defect?

In my view, yes. The clock as supplied by the manufacturers has not performed according to instructions.


I asked my opponent if I could stop the clock (his move). He agreed. I told him the situation. We had the arbiter reset the clock with increment and the clocks remained on 51 - 52 mins respectively.

As I said, FWIW.

Also, FWIW, you do not need your opponent's permission to stop the clock to seek the arbiter's assistance.

Basil
17-02-2007, 06:47 PM
Also, FWIW, you do not need your opponent's permission to stop the clock to seek the arbiter's assistance.

Thanks. I think I knew that subconsciously. I'll ensure I keep it top of mind. Trying to remember such a thing while in time-trouble or with a hostile opponent would not be the place to try and recall.

So, the FWIW is "quite a bit" to me. Cheers.

Garvinator
21-02-2007, 02:29 PM
Geurt Gijssen's latest article has appeared on www.chesscafe.com. The original situation was sent to Geurt for his opinion. Unfortunately the situation was NOT described accurately.


the following incident occurred at a tournament in Australia: two players were about to begin their game when they realized that the clock was set incorrectly. One of the players then reset the clock, but failed to include the + 0.30 increments. This error was not detected by either player and was only brought to the attention of the arbiter late in the game.

The arbiter began watching to see if the increment was added after the player moved, but one of the flags fell, which was then noted by the opponent and acknowledged by the player. The arbiter then checked the clock and confirmed that the setting was indeed incorrect.

Nevertheless, the arbiter ruled that the game result would stand and this decision was subsequently upheld on appeal. This decision seems to be reasonable, since any other alternative may have delayed the remaining rounds of the tournament, etc.

My question is: if a clock is set incorrectly, is it the same as having a defect in the clock? A defective clock seems to be the only situation covered explicitly by the rules.


First of all, it is clear that the clock was not defective. So let’s analyze the situation. During the game it was found that the clock setting was wrong. I assume that the players recorded their moves and that the number of moves was known. Therefore, the missing times on the clocks can be calculated and I do not see any reason as to why the clock times were not corrected. The schedule of the tournament would not have been affected if the clocks were adjusted immediately.

Phil, in the situation that occurred, the arbiter was only informed by a spectator right at the end of the game (just before flag fall) that the increments may not be adding. The arbiter went to inspect the game to see what was going on, but before the arbiter was able to confirm if the clocks were adding the increment or not, flag fall occurred.

The only people in a game of chess that can make claims are the two players involved and the arbiter. Therefore, in my opinion, the arbiter needs to actually see the clock not adding the required increment before flag fall. (my opinion, I am sure others will disagree ;) ).

It was a source of debate for quite a few posts if an arbiter should step in straight away on the say so of a spectator.


During the game it was found that the clock setting was wrong.It was actually only noticed after flag fall that the clock was not set to the tournament time control.

I disagree with adding the 15 minutes or so as both players may have made decisions based on the times on the clocks, in this case 25 seconds for one player and 7 minutes for the other.

Both players have been playing under the same conditions from the start of the game and neither has been unfairly affected, relative to their opponent.

I do agree with, in part at least, with re-setting the clock to start adding the 30 seconds if the clock is found to incorrectly set, before flag fall.