PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Olympiad forfeiture rule



Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 12:43 AM
AR reports Bob Smith (NZ) forfeited for showing up three minutes late.
What's going on with this? Presumably the new vagueness of the rule to give organizers and arbiters more power:


6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
There should be no exceptions, and 3 minutes is just daft.

Miranda
17-11-2008, 07:37 AM
The forefit rule is just stupid... if they really want to set a limit like that, they can set it to 30 minutes or so - there's always going to be issues getting 1300 players into one room, sitting down at the same time.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 10:10 AM
Win over El Salvador is an excellent result given that they were so evenly matched.


What's going on with this? Presumably the new vagueness of the rule to give organizers and arbiters more power:


6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise.
There should be no exceptions, and 3 minutes is just daft.

This Olympiad has a specific rule, for whatever reason, that players not in their places strictly on the dot forfeit.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 11:11 AM
This Olympiad has a specific rule, for whatever reason, that players not in their places strictly on the dot forfeit.
I know, but FIDE rules should now allow organizers to have such draconian rules.

road runner
17-11-2008, 11:34 AM
I know, but FIDE rules should now allow organizers to have such draconian rules.If I were representing my country, I would make an effort to at least show up on time. Is that so much to ask? Maybe it's just me...

WhiteElephant
17-11-2008, 11:44 AM
I know, but FIDE rules should now allow organizers to have such draconian rules.

I agree with this for any other tournament but the Olympiad is a pretty special event so I can understand them wanting to impose conditions like that. It might be a good thing for the players as it forces them to get organised and make sure they come 15 minutes early or more.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 11:53 AM
I know, but FIDE rules should now allow organizers to have such draconian rules.As far as I am aware it isnt an organiser rule, but is a FIDE Olympiad regulation. I note however that it is currently not listed in the FIDE handbook.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 11:55 AM
If I were representing my country, I would make an effort to at least show up on time.
Jawohl, vee heff vays of making you show up on teim!


Is that so much to ask? Maybe it's just me...
I've played in three Olympiads, and I think that we should be asked to do what the FIDE laws require, not over and above that.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 01:15 PM
This Olympiad has a specific rule, for whatever reason, that players not in their places strictly on the dot forfeit.
Same rule was enforced in World Mind Sports Games in Beijing.

road runner
17-11-2008, 01:50 PM
Jawohl, vee heff vays of making you show up on teim!

I've played in three Olympiads, and I think that we should be asked to do what the FIDE laws require, not over and above that.Yes but considering that it is a team event it would be good if the whole team showed up on time.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 01:53 PM
Yes but considering that it is a team event it would be good if the whole team showed up on time.
A lot of things are "good", but it doesn't follow that draconian sanctions on the contrary are justified. Once again, it is folly to beyond what the rules require, whether start times or agreed draws.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 02:02 PM
A lot of things are "good", but it doesn't follow that draconian sanctions on the contrary are justified. Once again, it is folly to beyond what the rules require, whether start times or agreed draws.They do not go beyond what the rules require. The FIDE laws themselves allow the tournament rules to specify a default time other than 1 hour.

In this particular case the tournament rules are set by FIDE and various FIDE events are covered by specific FIDE regulations.
The Olympiad is one of those events.

road runner
17-11-2008, 02:06 PM
A lot of things are "good", but it doesn't follow that draconian sanctions on the contrary are justified. Once again, it is folly to beyond what the rules require, whether start times or agreed draws.I think you meant "Laws" not "rules". The show up on time rule does not violate the Laws. And what makes it draconian?

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 02:07 PM
They do not go beyond what the rules require.
By "rules" I meant FIDE Laws, and they require arrival within one hour. Demanding an arrival within one minute is going beyond this requirement.


The FIDE laws themselves allow the tournament rules to specify a default time other than 1 hour.
I know, and they shouldn't.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 02:09 PM
The show up on time rule does not violate the Laws. And what makes it draconian?
It's draconian because it is both more stringent than the FIDE Laws, and makes no allowances for lower tolerances of most timekeeping devices; I'd be lucky if my own watch or house clocks were accurate to within a minute.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 02:12 PM
By "rules" I meant FIDE Laws, and they require arrival within one hour.No they do not. They set a default of 1 hour. They permit the competition rules to set any forfeit time they like.

However in this case the forfeit time of 0 minutes is set by FIDE themselves.

FIDE set the Laws of chess and the Regulations.

You appear to be one of those strange individuals who want to pick and choose what FIDE requirements they will and will not follow.

road runner
17-11-2008, 02:13 PM
It's draconian because it is both more stringent than the FIDE Laws, The Laws give the discretion to the arbiter, so it is hardly more stringent.


and makes no allowances for lower tolerances of most timekeeping devices; I'd be lucky if my own watch or house clocks were accurate to within a minute.If you want to represent your country and show up within a few second of the event starting, then it's tough shit if your bus is a few minutes late. Why not give the event the respect it deserves and aim to be there early.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 02:18 PM
It's draconian because it is both more stringent than the FIDE Laws, and makes no allowances for lower tolerances of most timekeeping devices; I'd be lucky if my own watch or house clocks were accurate to within a minute.If someone is stupid enough to leave themselves in the situation of being forfeited by a matter of minutes then it is their own fault.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 02:26 PM
If someone is stupid enough to leave themselves in the situation of being forfeited by a matter of minutes then it is their own fault.It is no justification for a draconian rule to claim that violators have only themselves to blame. Similarly, some moron can impose a rule that no blue pens are allowed in keeping one's scoresheet, and it's no defense to say, "anyone who still uses a blue pen when black ones are easily available has only himself to blame."

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 02:28 PM
The Laws give the discretion to the arbiter, so it is hardly more stringent.
My argument is that the Laws should be transparent, not give discretion for organizers and arbiters to be more draconian.


If you want to represent your country and show up within a few second of the event starting, then it's tough shit if your bus is a few minutes late. Why not give the event the respect it deserves and aim to be there early.
The respect it deserves is what FIDE Laws mandate, not what draconian organizers decree.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 02:31 PM
No they do not. They set a default of 1 hour.
I.e. that's a requirement. Anything more stringent is going beyond this requirement.


They permit the competition rules to set any forfeit time they like.
They should not.


However in this case the forfeit time of 0 minutes is set by FIDE themselves.
It's not the first time that FIDE has practised the rule of men rather than the rule of law.


You appear to be one of those strange individuals who want to pick and choose what FIDE requirements they will and will not follow.
No, just the requirements in the Laws, not those by despots—even those running a premier FIDE tourney.

road runner
17-11-2008, 02:34 PM
My argument is that the Laws should be transparent, not give discretion for organizers and arbiters to be more draconian.But this is a prime example of why the Laws should allow discretion. In a Qld weekender it is perfectly fine to show up a few minutes late, but when representing your country in a team, you should show up on time. You can't legislate for every situation, so give the arbiter/organizer discretion.



The respect it deserves is what FIDE Laws mandate, not what draconian organizers decree.But if the Laws' madate is to follow what the organizers decree, then following the latter is also following the former.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-11-2008, 02:44 PM
I suggest to move the discussion of forfeit to arbiter corner thread.

Miranda
17-11-2008, 03:24 PM
I suggest to move the discussion of forfeit to arbiter corner thread.

Agreed. Let's keep this thread about the Olympiad :)

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 03:25 PM
I suggest to move the discussion of forfeit to arbiter corner thread.
Suits me.

Watto
17-11-2008, 03:47 PM
Agreed. Let's keep this thread about the Olympiad :)
Yes, excellent suggestion on Igor's part (although I agree with Jono in this debate... it had to happen sometime ;))

I'm looking forward to seeing the match-up for the women especially. If Italy play their strongest team, Arianne could be playing IM Elena Sedina, the 2005 Australian Open winner. Arianne seems to be regaining her former strength so ... you never know. Actually, all the women seem to be performing well which is great to see. :)

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 03:48 PM
I.e. that's a requirement. Anything more stringent is going beyond this requirement.It isnt a requirement it is a default.

They should not.Yes they should.

It's not the first time that FIDE has practised the rule of men rather than the rule of law.

No, just the requirements in the Laws, not those by despots—even those running a premier FIDE tourney.You cannot have it both ways.

The laws of chess and the Olympiad tournament regulations are both determined by FIDE.
You have not given one good reason why one FIDE decision (the laws of chess) should be followed whilst another FIDE decison (Olympiad tournament regulations) should not.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 04:19 PM
It isnt a requirement it is a default.
Long tradition had one hour as the time after which a player would be defaulted. There is no good reason to dispense with this.


Yes they should.
This law is ridiculously harsh.


You have not given one good reason why one FIDE decision (the laws of chess) should be followed whilst another FIDE decison (Olympiad tournament regulations) should not.
The Laws should be determined after consultation, but even this consultation results in too much leeway for harsh organizers and arbiters. The Olympiad rule was imposed from on high.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 04:21 PM
(although I agree with Jono in this debate... it had to happen sometime ;))
Miranda does too. What's this site coming to? ;)


I'm looking forward to seeing the match-up for the women especially. If Italy play their strongest team, Arianne could be playing IM Elena Sedina, the 2005 Australian Open winner. Arianne seems to be regaining her former strength so ... you never know. Actually, all the women seem to be performing well which is great to see. :)
Yes, and credit to the selectors sticking to objective criteria.

Denis_Jessop
17-11-2008, 04:30 PM
I know, but FIDE rules should now allow organizers to have such draconian rules.

What has me puzzled about this rule and the short draw rules is that each is in direct conflict with FIDE Laws. Those Laws allow organisers to make "more detailed" rules that "do not conlfict in any way with the Official FIDE Laws of Chess" (Preface para a.) but even then their effect is limited. There is nothing in the FIDE Laws (or elsewhere, to my knowledge) to permit any organiser to impose rules conflicting with the FIDE Laws as has been done here, in Sofia, in Gibraltar, at the Doeberl Cup and some other places.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 04:41 PM
What has me puzzled about this rule and the short draw rules is that each is in direct conflict with FIDE Laws. Those Laws allow organisers to make "more detailed" rules that "do not conlfict in any way with the Official FIDE Laws of Chess" (Preface para a.) but even then their effect is limited. There is nothing in the FIDE Laws (or elsewhere, to my knowledge) to permit any organiser to impose rules conflicting with the FIDE Laws as has been done here, in Sofia, in Gibraltar, at the Doeberl Cup and some other places.
That's what I thought.

I think default players arriving over a minute late contradicts the FIDE Laws too:


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

The "unless" clause seems to modify "shall lose the game", not give leeway for draconian reductions in default time. I.e. it allows the arbiter or organizer to go easier on a player arriving over an hour late (e.g. unavoidably delayed), not sharply reduce the leeway.

road runner
17-11-2008, 04:52 PM
That's what I thought.

I think default players arriving over a minute late contradicts the FIDE Laws too:


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

The "unless" clause seems to modify "shall lose the game", not give leeway for draconian reductions in default time. I.e. it allows the arbiter or organizer to go easier on a player arriving over an hour late (e.g. unavoidably delayed), not sharply reduce the leeway.The Law deals with what happens to a player who arrives over one hour late. It does not deal with what happens to a players who is 3 minutes late. That is left to the discretion of the arbiter. There is no contradiction here.

Eg, if I do not breathe for 1 hour I will die. That does not imply that I can not breathe for 3 mins and live.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 04:59 PM
That's what I thought.

I think default players arriving over a minute late contradicts the FIDE Laws too:


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

The "unless" clause seems to modify "shall lose the game", not give leeway for draconian reductions in default time. I.e. it allows the arbiter or organizer to go easier on a player arriving over an hour late (e.g. unavoidably delayed), not sharply reduce the leeway.You may think that but you are wrong.
The law and its history allows both situations. i.e the altering of the time from 1 hour to some other value and/or deciding if exceeding the specified time leads to loss of the game.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 05:08 PM
The Law deals with what happens to a player who arrives over one hour late.
Yes it does. Usually he loses, but the arbiter or organizer can decide otherwise. This is what the text of the Law said. So should we follow the Law or the whims of men?


It does not deal with what happens to a players who is 3 minutes late. That is left to the discretion of the arbiter. There is no contradiction here.
Yet nothing is left to the discretion of the arbiter to default such a person. No one should lose unless this is either explicitly stated in the Laws or can be logically deduced from them.


The law and its history allows both situations. i.e the altering of the time from 1 hour to some other value and/or deciding if exceeding the specified time leads to loss of the game.
This is not what the text allows, since the "unless" doesn't cover changing this time. And it's unprecedented in history to default players for being a minute late.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 05:17 PM
This is not what the text allows, since the "unless" doesn't cover changing this time.That is incorrect.
Irrespective of the poor language used the FIDE Rules Commission clearly takes the view that the rules of the competition can specify a time other than 1 hour.


And it's unprecedented in history to default players for being a minute late.On this we agree however with regards the Laws of Chess it is allowed.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2008, 05:38 PM
Irrespective of the poor language used the FIDE Rules Commission clearly takes the view that the rules of the competition can specify a time other than 1 hour.
Right, so the poor language should be changed into good language so it states what the Rules Commission wants to allow. It is still unreasonably harsh though.

flukey
17-11-2008, 06:20 PM
I must admit to having a bob each way on this issue. I initially thought it was ridiculously harsh, but I am no longer so categorical. I will set out the exact procedure operating so people can see the context in which this rule operates:

1. Special Olympiad trams go near each hotel. These trams do not pick up other passengers (in fact when we scoot past tram stops with people waiting they look a little grumpy!!). They schedule 3 of them at 1.35, 1.45, and 1.55 (our hotel is a little way out so that is why the leave early, trip takes 24 mins) and the tram stops 100 metres from the venue.

2. If one of these trams crashes, breaks down etc, then you would have enough time to get their anyway, but I understand the organisers would not enforce default if official transport broke caused unavoidable delay.

2. With 5 minutes to go, an announcement is made in the hall to take your seats. For obvious reasons, anyone who has not taken their seats usually does so now.

3. With one minute to go, a further announcement is made to take your seats - you actually have to be seated - standing behind the chair doesn't count!

4. The round starts.

So it should be quite hard to miss the start. Especially since there is such a routine in place.

So is this fair? Well I now think so. The arrangements are pretty much bullet proof. I think other sports have getting to the start on time as a pre-requisite - you can't be 3 minutes late to the 100 metre final, and getting 3 minutes late to the marathon final would increase your difficulties.

As for Bob missing the start, well perhaps unwisely he decided not to join us on the 1.45 tram and instead catch the 2.12 tram so he could do more prep. As the tram did not go past the venue, Bob got confused and well overshot. He then got off in the middle of the Aldstadt with 10 minutes to go. He ran as fast as he could but didn't make it, in fact he wasn't close (3 minutes late - a girl got defaulted the day before for being 10 seconds late!!).

Ian Murray
17-11-2008, 07:50 PM
...the exact procedure operating so people can see the context in which this rule operates:....

In that light, fair enough. Good organisation, no distractions by latecomers, commonsense and courtesy prevail

Saragossa
17-11-2008, 08:57 PM
In regards to the arriving late rule I believe it is ridiculous.
If you have one hour to complete a game then you have one hour to complete it regardless (I don't know the actual time controls just an example).
Unless you are not allowed to leave the board during play then the rule is unsupported.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 09:05 PM
Yes it does. Usually he loses, but the arbiter or organizer can decide otherwise. This is what the text of the Law said. So should we follow the Law or the whims of men?

I agree with Bill about the interpretation.

We are following the Law because the Law says that the forfeit time is one hour unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiters decide otherwise. The rules of the competition specify otherwise therefore the forfeit time is anything over zero; end of story. Whatever may be said about the merits of the competition rule it is clearly in accordance with and permitted by the Laws and was clearly advertised in advance. If FIDE did not mean discretion to be exercised by organisers they could have worded the rule to prevent such discretion. They didn't.

This is quite a contrast to "short draws" rules as mentioned by Denis, which are clearly not mentioned in the current Laws, conflict with them, and could in theory be open to legal challenge for that reason. Notably FIDE is racing to mend this gaping hole and I expect to see a provision for anti-short-draw rules (along the lines of "The organisers may decide to impose [blah] for their tournament") in the next version.

As for whether the instant-forfeit regulation is a good one, I'm not sure. One thing I will say is that given that it exists it should have been enforced rigidly from the start and I have seen reports that they've been wavering a bit.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 09:10 PM
This is quite a contrast to "short draws" rules as mentioned by Denis, which are clearly not mentioned in the current Laws, conflict with them, and could in theory be open to legal challenge for that reason. Notably FIDE is racing to mend this gaping hole and I expect to see a provision for anti-short-draw rules (along the lines of "The organisers may decide to impose [blah] for their tournament") in the next version.This is correct, however the proposals relate to agreed draws only and not draws by three fold repetition.


As for whether the instant-forfeit regulation is a good one, I'm not sure. One thing I will say is that given that it exists it should have been enforced rigidly from the start and I have seen reports that they've been wavering a bit.Apparently they did not enforce it in the first 2 rounds but announced that it would be "strictly" enforced from round 3 onwards. This apparently has been the case.

Do not be surprised if there is a reduction of the 1 hour limit explicitly mentioned in Article 6.7 to 30 minutes.

Bill Gletsos
17-11-2008, 09:13 PM
In regards to the arriving late rule I believe it is ridiculous.
If you have one hour to complete a game then you have one hour to complete it regardless (I don't know the actual time controls just an example).
Unless you are not allowed to leave the board during play then the rule is unsupported.If you are late for a tennis match you forfeit. If you are late for a foot or swimming race you forfeit. Same with golf to name just a few.

Perhaps you can name another competitive sport (especially at the world level) that allows someone to turn up late and still compete after the scheduled start time.

Kevin Bonham
17-11-2008, 09:21 PM
Perhaps you can name another competitive sport (especially at the world level) that allows someone to turn up late and still compete after the scheduled start time.

I can name two, and have done so before when this debate has come up here: motor sport and cycling.

Motorsport:

If your car is still in the pit lane when the deadline for forming the grid expires, you are not automatically disqualified. Instead, you get to start from the pit lane, but cannot leave the pit lane until all the cars have gone past the start-finish line. There have even been cases where cars needing sudden repairs have started from the pit lane after the others have completed a number of laps.

That said, motorsport does have various scrutineering requirements and failure to present your car for scrutineering at the appropriate time often gets you DSQd.

Cycling:

In the 2006 Tour de France Floyd Landis showed up marginally late to the prologue gate as he had damaged something on the way to the gate and needed to fix it. He was permitted to start with a loss of the elapsed time (I think it was about six seconds).

There may be others but in the great majority of sports you would be forfeited.

Basil
18-11-2008, 12:24 AM
I remember my commutes to Melbourne in 2003/04. I caught a plane from BNE to MEL and return each week, some 100 flights.

On one occassion, I was waylaid leaving home on account of a difficulty with my son - I simply had to be there. Nonetheless, I made up time (I had left a margin for error) and was travelling towards the airport at the top end of Ann Street for a 6am flight (or similar).

Booze Bus! Great!

It wasn't a busy booze bus and I did my duty by blowing in the bag. The policeman became distracted, probably something distract-worthy :eek:, and then he seemed to forget about me. I put on my extremely polite Duggan charm and asked him if I could go as I was (about to be) running late for a plane.

For my troubles, I got a lesson in time management :wall: and I waited (probably) an extra two mintes for having bothered him :doh:

The point? Sometimes, despite planning, life takes over.

Carry on!

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 01:08 AM
We are following the Law because the Law says that the forfeit time is one hour unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiters decide otherwise.
No, it says that if a player is more than an hour late, he loses by default unless the laws of the competition or arbiters say otherwise. It is ungrammatical to apply the "unless" to anything but the immediate antecedent.


This is quite a contrast to "short draws" rules as mentioned by Denis, which are clearly not mentioned in the current Laws, conflict with them, and could in theory be open to legal challenge for that reason.
Agreed.


Notably FIDE is racing to mend this gaping hole and I expect to see a provision for anti-short-draw rules (along the lines of "The organisers may decide to impose [blah] for their tournament") in the next version.
A backward step.


As for whether the instant-forfeit regulation is a good one, I'm not sure.
I'm sure it's bad. Analogies with sprints and other selected sports are specious. There is enough penalty for lateness: loss of time on the clock.


One thing I will say is that given that it exists it should have been enforced rigidly from the start and I have seen reports that they've been wavering a bit.
Yes, there must be even-handed application, even of harsh laws.

Miranda
18-11-2008, 08:10 AM
There should be a 15-minute window. The press are allowed there for 15 minutes, with flash on their loud, clicky cameras, so I don't think a player quietly sneaking in will make any difference.

MichaelBaron
18-11-2008, 11:05 AM
There are a lot of other ridiculous "novelties" being introduced at Dresden. For instance, if two teams finish on the same score (team points) the placings will be decided not on the based of the point scores. but based on TeamPoints Berger. That means that by crushing their opponents 4-0 teams actually damagetheir tie-break chances as 2.5-1.5 victory will give them better tie-break scores

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 11:17 AM
There are a lot of other ridiculous "novelties" being introduced at Dresden. For instance, if two teams finish on the same score (team points) the placings will be decided not on the based of the point scores. but based on TeamPoints Berger. That means that by crushing their opponents 4-0 teams actually damagetheir tie-break chances as 2.5-1.5 victory will give them better tie-break scores
Of all the moronic ideas ...:wall: :wall: :evil: :evil:

Igor_Goldenberg
18-11-2008, 11:25 AM
There are a lot of other ridiculous "novelties" being introduced at Dresden. For instance, if two teams finish on the same score (team points) the placings will be decided not on the based of the point scores. but based on TeamPoints Berger. That means that by crushing their opponents 4-0 teams actually damagetheir tie-break chances as 2.5-1.5 victory will give them better tie-break scores
Incorrect. 4-0 will give better tie-break score. Result against a team (either 4 or 2.5) is multiplied by the number of team (not individual!) point scored.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 11:46 AM
Incorrect. 4-0 will give better tie-break score. Result against a team (either 4 or 2.5) is multiplied by the number of team (not individual!) point scored.
OK, not as bad as we thought. But completely dispensing with total game points scored is a backward step.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-11-2008, 12:47 PM
OK, not as bad as we thought. But completely dispensing with total game points scored is a backward step.
That is not disputed.

Denis_Jessop
18-11-2008, 03:00 PM
I can name two, and have done so before when this debate has come up here: motor sport and cycling.

Motorsport:

If your car is still in the pit lane when the deadline for forming the grid expires, you are not automatically disqualified. Instead, you get to start from the pit lane, but cannot leave the pit lane until all the cars have gone past the start-finish line. There have even been cases where cars needing sudden repairs have started from the pit lane after the others have completed a number of laps.

That said, motorsport does have various scrutineering requirements and failure to present your car for scrutineering at the appropriate time often gets you DSQd.

Cycling:

In the 2006 Tour de France Floyd Landis showed up marginally late to the prologue gate as he had damaged something on the way to the gate and needed to fix it. He was permitted to start with a loss of the elapsed time (I think it was about six seconds).

There may be others but in the great majority of sports you would be forfeited.

It may not be the best thing to compare chess with other sports in this regard. Certainly in cycling, or some aspects of it, the rules allow a late start. There is another famous Tour de France incident of a kind similar to the Landis one. In 1989 Pedro Delgado, who had won the Tour in 1988, arrived at the Prologue time trial start almost 3 minutes after his allotted starting time. The rules provided that the clock ran from the allotted starting time so his time included the time lost by his lateness. But then in a criterium (a short circuit road race over meny laps) a rider with mechanical trouble is allowed to take a lap out for it to be fixed and there is no chess equivalent to that.

Moreover in golf the situation is not simply disqualification if you are late. It is common to allow players to start a liitle late but there are no hard and fast rules. Golf is one of the few sports (perhaps the only one) in which arguments about the rules are more complicated and more heated than they are in chess and there is an official book of rules and decisions on them put out jointly by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews and the US Golf Association that runs to over 500 pages.

DJ

WhiteElephant
18-11-2008, 03:08 PM
OK, not as bad as we thought. But completely dispensing with total game points scored is a backward step.

Yeah it's amazing, the longer the Olympiad goes on, the more ridiculous it is looking. It's a unique opportunity to have so many players from so many countries in one room playing against each other. And this rule ensures that many of the games will be a waste of time I mean what's the point of getting them all there, hey.

WhiteElephant
18-11-2008, 03:26 PM
Sorry to be off topic again but I've just spent some time going through the games and there seems to be a lot of piece shuffling going on in many games, even more so than usual. I assume players are delaying the result of their games while waiting to see what happens with their team mates and if one player in their team gets a win, they deaden the play and rush to draw. Maybe I am just being sceptical but some of the games do seem to support it.

Miranda
18-11-2008, 03:52 PM
Sorry to be off topic again but I've just spent some time going through the games and there seems to be a lot of piece shuffling going on in many games, even more so than usual. I assume players are delaying the result of their games while waiting to see what happens with their team mates and if their team gets a win, they deaden the play and rush to draw. Maybe I am just being sceptical but some of the games do seem to support it.

I think you're right :)

MichaelBaron
18-11-2008, 05:51 PM
Apparently, organisers are being selective in applying the "be there on time" rule. A russian language chess website (www.russiachess.org) mentions that 2 of the Mongolian players were late for their games against Ukraine, but nevertheless got a chance to play:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 06:06 PM
Yeah it's amazing, the longer the Olympiad goes on, the more ridiculous it is looking. It's a unique opportunity to have so many players from so many countries in one room playing against each other. And this rule ensures that many of the games will be a waste of time I mean what's the point of getting them all there, hey.
And heavy-handed forfeiture rules mean that another player is deprived of a game. The match point rule reduces the incentive for each player to play each game hard.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2008, 08:46 PM
No, it says that if a player is more than an hour late, he loses by default unless the laws of the competition or arbiters say otherwise. It is ungrammatical to apply the "unless" to anything but the immediate antecedent.

Given that the FIDE laws are drafted primarily by people who do not have English as their first language and contain numerous cases of sloppy expression, insisting on grammatical exactitudes that even many native English speakers would not be aware of is unjustified.


I'm sure it's bad. Analogies with sprints and other selected sports are specious. There is enough penalty for lateness: loss of time on the clock.

I question that loss of time on the clock is really that much of a penalty.

I've run a number of handicap tournaments where handicaps are based on rating. An example of this I've used is: base time of 30 minutes, and for each 20 points of rating difference take one minute off the higher rated player's time and add it to the lower rated, provided that the higher rated player has at least 3 minutes.

My experience is that this form of handicapping, extreme as it might sound, makes only a very slight difference to the results. If the lower rated player tries to play as fast as the higher rated player then the higher rated player, being immensely better at blitz, wins. If the lower rated player tries to slow down, the higher rated player thinks on their time, and although that means thinking one ply behind, that's trivial given the difference in calculation strength.

Between evenly matched players the effect of time off the clock at the start of the game will be greater, but I doubt it makes that big a difference, especially if the player who is late is a naturally fast player anyway.

Add to that that having an opponent not show up at the start of the game can be disconcerting for some players and could even be considered as a form of distraction in such cases. This is especially so if you get to the stage where it looks highly likely you will get a free point and then the opponent shows up after say 40 minutes.

I reckon an ideal penalty for lateness would be that for every 10 minutes an opponent is late you can remove one of their pawns from the board. :D

There is another point specific to the Olympiad. When you have an enormous hall it is desirable to have everyone settled and ready to go at the same time rather than having the noise and distraction of players coming in late and starting their games a few minutes in.

Garvinator
18-11-2008, 09:29 PM
Another reason for having everyone seated at the start of play is that it looks better in the photos, rather than seeing missing players and empty boards.

Miranda
18-11-2008, 10:15 PM
So long as all the press, journalists and photographers are allowed to be wandering around the playing area I think the players should be allowed to sneak in.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 10:17 PM
Given that the FIDE laws are drafted primarily by people who do not have English as their first language and contain numerous cases of sloppy expression, insisting on grammatical exactitudes that even many native English speakers would not be aware of is unjustified.
It is justified for a native English speaker to understand a law according to its actual wording as per the laws of grammar.


I question that loss of time on the clock is really that much of a penalty.
"Not much of a penalty" fits with "not much of a crime".


I've run a number of handicap tournaments where handicaps are based on rating. An example of this I've used is: base time of 30 minutes, and for each 20 points of rating difference take one minute off the higher rated player's time and add it to the lower rated, provided that the higher rated player has at least 3 minutes.

My experience is that this form of handicapping, extreme as it might sound, makes only a very slight difference to the results. If the lower rated player tries to play as fast as the higher rated player then the higher rated player, being immensely better at blitz, wins. If the lower rated player tries to slow down, the higher rated player thinks on their time, and although that means thinking one ply behind, that's trivial given the difference in calculation strength.
All that is true; we have the same trouble at the Logan club; we find it hard to stop the stronger player winning no matter how much the time handicap.


Between evenly matched players the effect of time off the clock at the start of the game will be greater, but I doubt it makes that big a difference, especially if the player who is late is a naturally fast player anyway.
It might make a difference at relatively high levels.


Add to that that having an opponent not show up at the start of the game can be disconcerting for some players and could even be considered as a form of distraction in such cases. This is especially so if you get to the stage where it looks highly likely you will get a free point and then the opponent shows up after say 40 minutes.
This actually happened with Fischer–Reshevsky at the Sousse Interzonal, 1967, (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044272&kpage=1) when Reshevksy was so flustered by Fischer's withdraw/re-enter/withdraw behaviour, and arriving at this game 5 min before he would be defaulted, that he blundered on move 24. All the same, the one hour time limit has worked fine for a hundred years, so no need to make it more draconian.


There is another point specific to the Olympiad.
I've played in three, and there was no problem with the normal rules.


When you have an enormous hall it is desirable to have everyone settled and ready to go at the same time rather than having the noise and distraction of players coming in late and starting their games a few minutes in.
But who really wants the players beyond the first few boards, apart from their fellow countrymen?

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 10:23 PM
So long as all the press, journalists and photographers are allowed to be wandering around the playing area I think the players should be allowed to sneak in.
Indeed, there is a lot of activity at the start of the round; all the assistant arbiters and team captains as well.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2008, 10:31 PM
It is justified for a native English speaker to understand a law according to its actual wording as per the laws of grammar.

This native English speaker observes that the vast majority of even fellow native English speakers have little idea of the (often dying) laws of grammar, and therefore that allowances often have to be made for this in understanding what they are saying.


But who really wants the players beyond the first few boards, apart from their fellow countrymen?

Not sure what the relevance of this question is. If you're talking about media attention, that wasn't what I had in mind. What I had in mind was simply the extent to which players starting their games late disturb other players in the process.

I actually find this quite distracting in weekend tournaments sometimes - often I've started my game but there will be a few minutes of players arriving slightly late, talking to their opponents, shaking hands and getting underway before there is quiet. Usually I will just sit there and lose time off my clock waiting for the noise to cease rather than try to make opening decisions with all that racket going on.

Capablanca-Fan
18-11-2008, 10:41 PM
This native English speaker observes that the vast majority of even fellow native English speakers have little idea of the (often dying) laws of grammar, and therefore that allowances often have to be made for this in understanding what they are saying.
This allowance should be to give the players the benefit of the doubt, not those who want to penalize them.


I actually find this quite distracting in weekend tournaments sometimes - often I've started my game but there will be a few minutes of players arriving slightly late, talking to their opponents, shaking hands and getting underway before there is quiet. Usually I will just sit there and lose time off my clock waiting for the noise to cease rather than try to make opening decisions with all that racket going on.
There is no perfect solution. But there should be a very good reason to change such a well-established law.

Kevin Bonham
18-11-2008, 10:59 PM
This allowance should be to give the players the benefit of the doubt, not those who want to penalize them.

But in this case the setting of a clearcut tournament condition removes all doubt - provided it is enforced consistently.

It is the suggestion that it has not been enforced consistently that is the big concern for me.

Saragossa
18-11-2008, 11:16 PM
If you are late for a tennis match you forfeit. If you are late for a foot or swimming race you forfeit. Same with golf to name just a few.

Perhaps you can name another competitive sport (especially at the world level) that allows someone to turn up late and still compete after the scheduled start time.

But there is a difference in the fact that it was going to have a max amount of time to go for anyway. no matter how late someone arrives during a game (within the time control) it was going to go for the same amount of time anyway. if they wanted to really crack down on late arrivals then they should have the time controls as 5-10 minutes for each move then the max someone can leave for is 5-10 mins. unfortunately this isn't all that practical so is shunned in todays time controls.

CameronD
18-11-2008, 11:41 PM
If you are late for a tennis match you forfeit. If you are late for a foot or swimming race you forfeit. Same with golf to name just a few.

Perhaps you can name another competitive sport (especially at the world level) that allows someone to turn up late and still compete after the scheduled start time.

There are competitive sports that allow for late contestants without penalty.

National Lawn bowls laws allow a team to be 15 minutes late without penalty which is a commonwealth games sport.

eclectic
18-11-2008, 11:45 PM
National Lawn bowls laws allow a team to be 15 minutes late without penalty which is a commonwealth games sport.

Disregard that example please Bill; Cam is obviously biased! ;)

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 12:57 AM
But in this case the setting of a clearcut tournament condition removes all doubt — provided it is enforced consistently.
BTW, my wife is not a native English speaker*, and understood the "unless" clause the same way I did.


It is the suggestion that it has not been enforced consistently that is the big concern for me.
That's very bad.

*Her native tongue is American :P

Phil Bourke
19-11-2008, 01:19 AM
After a bit of time with Google, I found examples that had late arrival allowed others that had notification of presence needed upto 1 hr prior to start time and others that had mixed requirements, the tournament organiser/s determined their own individual stance.
Interestingly Chess was the only one I found with a 1 hour period of grace before forfeit, some billiards organisations and tournaments did have 45 mins, but with a sliding scale of 15 mins-forfeit first set, 30 mins-forfeit 2nd set, 45 mins-forfeit game.

After this research and some of my own thought, I actually applaud the Olympiad organisers attempt to improve the image of chess with a simple demand of the players to be on time. Mind you, the let themselves down badly with the 1 hour delay to Round 3 because of their own mistakes :) But as with all change, I think they pushed too far. I think that a 10-15 min grace period before forfeiture would cover most contingencies of an unexpected delay causing late arrival. A readily available phone number for people to contact in the event of being delayed could improve matters considerably too. This would allow the organisers/arbiters and opponents to know that the opponent had experienced diffculties, was on the way etc.

So perhaps a bit of allowance without reverting to the ridiculous 1 hr previously allowed will see this practice accepted at all tournaments.

eclectic
19-11-2008, 01:26 AM
they should have a rule such that for every five minutes your opponent is late you are permitted to play their move for them :whistle:

Miranda
19-11-2008, 06:44 AM
If only your opponent was 20 mins late, lol

Ian Rout
19-11-2008, 08:23 AM
the one hour time limit has worked fine for a hundred years
Has this rule existed for a hundred years or have there been variants? Whatever, I'd dispute that it's worked fine. It's worked fine for players who can't be bothered turning up on time or who deliberately roll up late as a tactic. It's not so good for opponents who have to hang round for an hour to not play a game, or have to stay around their board in case their opponent turns up.

Allowing zero lateness is a bit harsh; I'd suggest requiring players not at their boards by start of play to report to a marshall and being allowed in at, say, twenty minutes with that much off their clocks, with the punctual player permitted to leave the venue to get a bit of air, cup of coffee etc. That would serve as a disincentive to the offender without the extreme of a forfeit.

Having said that, people know the rules and as far as I know without being there it's surely not that hard to follow it. Ignoring it then putting on your Che Guevara tee-shirt and complaining how hard done by you are is not a good idea (compared to just turning up on time) and is an argument you're not going to win.

road runner
19-11-2008, 08:42 AM
Instead of comparing it to (other) sports, it might be useful to compare late arrival to a chess game with late arrival for an exam. My uni suggested for people to be there 15 mins early, and once the actual exam time started no one else was allowed admission. As Kevin says, it is very distracting to other people who actually do bother to show up on time for late people to meander in at their leisure and make noise etc.

CameronD
19-11-2008, 08:52 AM
I think the late forfeiture rule is correct and should be introduced into the laws of chess. Maybe then people will turn up 30 minutes early and rounds would start on time.

I aim to be at games 30 minutes early, though am becoming a little slack as I know if I'm a few minutes late it doesn't matter as

a) I'll just lose a few minutes of the clock

b) the round wouldn't have started anyway.

The late forfeiture rule is no less harsh than the mobile phone rule.

Miranda
19-11-2008, 08:53 AM
Instead of comparing it to (other) sports, it might be useful to compare late arrival to a chess game with late arrival for an exam. My uni suggested for people to be there 15 mins early, and once the actual exam time started no one else was allowed admission. As Kevin says, it is very distracting to other people who actually do bother to show up on time for late people to meander in at their leisure and make noise etc.

But for the first 15 minutes of the game, the press are allowed there! They can take photos with flash, walk around, do whatever they want... I think they should be allowed to start up to 15 minutes after the round's started.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 08:55 AM
But for the first 15 minutes of the game, the press are allowed there! They can take photos with flash, walk around, do whatever they want... I think they should be allowed to start up to 15 minutes after the round's started.
That's a fair point, and sounds familiar from my own Olympiad experiences.

road runner
19-11-2008, 08:56 AM
But for the first 15 minutes of the game, the press are allowed there! They can take photos with flash, walk around, do whatever they want... I think they should be allowed to start up to 15 minutes after the round's started.But if not all of the players are there in the first 15 mins, then the press will not be able to take their photos until the 15-30 min timeframe.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 08:57 AM
The late forfeiture rule is no less harsh than the mobile phone rule.
Both are too harsh, but at least the mobile phone rule is explicit in the FIDE Laws. This Olympiad rule can be imposed only under an ungrammatical reading of the FIDE Laws.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 08:59 AM
As for Bob missing the start, well perhaps unwisely he decided not to join us on the 1.45 tram and instead catch the 2.12 tram so he could do more prep. As the tram did not go past the venue, Bob got confused and well overshot. He then got off in the middle of the Aldstadt with 10 minutes to go. He ran as fast as he could but didn't make it, in fact he wasn't close (3 minutes late - a girl got defaulted the day before for being 10 seconds late!!).
I.e. it was an honest mistake on Smith's part. Yet NZ lost a point, and his opponent who might have travelled thousands of miles also didn't get a game, because these organizers are self-righteous despots who can't even follow FIDE Laws grammatically.

road runner
19-11-2008, 09:05 AM
I.e. it was an honest mistake on Smith's part. Yet NZ lost a point, and his opponent who might have travelled thousands of miles also didn't get a game, because these organizers are self-righteous despots who can't even follow FIDE Laws grammatically.An honest mistake yes, but his mistake for choosing to stay at the hotel longer to prepare, when the rest of his team was on their way to the venue. A mistake I am sure he will not duplicate.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 09:14 AM
An honest mistake yes, but his mistake for choosing to stay at the hotel longer to prepare, when the rest of his team was on their way to the venue.
The reason he was late was taking the wrong tram in a foreign country. Nothing wrong with conscientious preparation.


A mistake I am sure he will not duplicate.
Of course, and if there was a rule against writing in blue pen, that "mistake" will also not be duplicated after a few forfeits. It doesn't change the fact that it's a fascist rule that shouldn't have been instituted in the first place.

road runner
19-11-2008, 09:23 AM
The reason he was late was taking the wrong tram in a foreign country. Nothing wrong with conscientious preparation.No, he decided to chance his arm and rather than take the right tram get in a few mins preparation.



Of course, and if there was a rule against writing in blue pen, that "mistake" will also not be duplicated after a few forfeits. It doesn't change the fact that it's a fascist rule that shouldn't have been instituted in the first place.If there were a reason for not using blue pens, then what would the problem be? Eg in multi choice exams that are marked by machine that only recognize lead pencils, would you boycott such exams because you cannot your so loved blue pen? Clearly there are reasons why players should show up on time, unlike your silly blue pen in chess analogy.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 10:55 AM
No, he decided to chance his arm and rather than take the right tram get in a few mins preparation.
He wasn't to know that the tram wouldn't stop there; it would have been plenty of time to spare.


If there were a reason for not using blue pens, then what would the problem be?
There isn't though. I was pointing out the folly of justifying harsh laws by "it's easy to comply and avoid punishment"


Eg in multi choice exams that are marked by machine that only recognize lead pencils, would you boycott such exams because you cannot your so loved blue pen? Clearly there are reasons why players should show up on time, unlike your silly blue pen in chess analogy.
I never said that I liked blue pen. I was using it as a hypthetical easy-to-comply-with rule that should still not be implemented.

This increasingly collectivist approach of FIDE (what's right for the competition, organizers and arbiters rather than players) is cause for concern.

road runner
19-11-2008, 11:34 AM
He wasn't to know that the tram wouldn't stop there; it would have been plenty of time to spare.I'm going to leave discussion of specifics relating to Smith there. I think my point has been made.

There isn't though. I was pointing out the folly of justifying harsh laws by "it's easy to comply and avoid punishment"And the fact that there isn't a reason for the blue pen "stapo" means that your analogy is false because there are several valid reasons to enforce the be on time rule.

I never said that I liked blue pen. I was using it as a hypthetical easy-to-comply-with rule that should still not be implemented.An easy to comply with rule that has no reason behind it is vastly different from one that has several reasons behind it. If FIDE had banned blue pens, I'd be right there with you bagging them.

This increasingly collectivist approach of FIDE (what's right for the competition, organizers and arbiters rather than players) is cause for concern.But the rule is there for the chessplayers too, i.e. the ones who can be bothered showing up on time and prefer not to have their thought process interrupted by those who cannot.

Garvinator
19-11-2008, 11:58 AM
But the rule is there for the chessplayers too, i.e. the ones who can be bothered showing up on time and prefer not to have their thought process interrupted by those who cannot.
It is also there for the chessplayers as it increases the number of players who will hear the start of round announcements (if this occurs).

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 12:10 PM
Lots of despots claim that their repressive policies are "for the people".

road runner
19-11-2008, 12:20 PM
Lots of despots claim that their repressive policies are "for the people"....therefore any policies that claim they are for the people come from despots? :hmm: doesn't follow.

Ian Rout
19-11-2008, 01:46 PM
Links between rules of sports and political philosophies are generally pretty tenuous. Rules of sports are to facilitate some aspect of the way the game is played or organised independent of politics. Offside is a fairly severe limitation of people's freedom of movement; in fact the restriction to eleven a side impinges on freedom of association. And if you own five balls why shouldn't you be allowed to bring them all on to the field?

Drawing these sort of parallels is mainly (if not entirely) just useful for jocular conversations at the pub.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2008, 02:03 PM
Well the FIDE Rules Commission met yesterday in Dresden, therefore any planned changes to the Laws of chess will be accepted by Tuesday next week during the General Assembly meeting.

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 02:20 PM
Well the FIDE Rules Commission met yesterday in Dresden, therefore any planned changes to the Laws of chess will be accepted by Tuesday next week during the General Assembly meeting.
Bill, did you have any motions or suggestions for them?

Phil Bourke
19-11-2008, 04:09 PM
I'm going to leave discussion of specifics relating to Smith there. I think my point has been made.
But the rule is there for the chessplayers too, i.e. the ones who can be bothered showing up on time and prefer not to have their thought process interrupted by those who cannot.
Three cheers for Boris :clap: :clap: :clap:

Jono is coming straight from the selfish side of chess players in that everything should be about them, don't care who or what has to give to accommodate them, just give them what they want.

Sorry to burst your balloon, but if chess players want better conditions befitting their status, they are going to have to carry their end of the deal and behave in a manner that suggests they have that status.

Bill Gletsos
19-11-2008, 04:27 PM
Bill, did you have any motions or suggestions for them?No, but I have seen the final draft version.

eclectic
19-11-2008, 04:32 PM
i was under the impression kevin had submitted something but i may be mistaken

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Three cheers for Boris :clap: :clap: :clap:

Jono is coming straight from the selfish side of chess players in that everything should be about them, don't care who or what has to give to accommodate them, just give them what they want.
Bourke and Boris are coming from the nanny state or collectivist side, which is selfishness on the part of chess bureaucrats. But my individualism actually is for the benefit of chess players in general, not just me.


Sorry to burst your balloon, but if chess players want better conditions befitting their status, they are going to have to carry their end of the deal and behave in a manner that suggests they have that status.
All sorts of crap has been dished out to players lately in the name of "improving chess players' status": this draconian 1-min-late forfeiture and the crass rules against agreed draws as per the Doerbel farce last year.

Garrett
19-11-2008, 05:24 PM
Without typing a huge post, and I've had a tiring day.... (I can type more tomorrow if required).

I'm with Jono on this one.

Cheers
Garrett.

Denis_Jessop
19-11-2008, 07:04 PM
I'm afraid that I can't agree with Phil on this one. Jono's argument aginst the Dresden rule does not have anything to do with the selfishness of chess players in my view.

The main issue is whether the Dresden rule is unfair and I think that it is, having regard to the relevant FIDE laws.

The question was raised the other day of how other sports deal with this matter. I note that the Tournament Rules of the Australian Bridge Federation have no provision for outright forfeiture for late attendance but instead adopt a sliding scale of point penalties which bridge can do because of their scoring system. Chess could do something similar with time penalties, not that I am advocating that. The rules are quite extensive but can be dowloaded at http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/index.html .

DJ

Garvinator
19-11-2008, 08:15 PM
All these debates now are a complete waste of time. The time for debate about the no late arrival rule was way back when the rules were first put out and the no late arrival rule was included as part of it.

I am not aware of ANY national federation protesting about the rule. It is only now that a few players have lost games because of it does it become a point of debate.

For my personal opinion, I applaud the Olympiad organisers/fide on this one. I would like to see it brought in as a general law of chess.

Denis_Jessop
19-11-2008, 08:47 PM
All these debates now are a complete waste of time. The time for debate about the no late arrival rule was way back when the rules were first put out and the no late arrival rule was included as part of it.

I am not aware of ANY national federation protesting about the rule. It is only now that a few players have lost games because of it does it become a point of debate.

For my personal opinion, I applaud the Olympiad organisers/fide on this one. I would like to see it brought in as a general law of chess.

Arguably all debates on this Forum are a complete waste of time and all of us would be better off devoting the time to chess study, family, other hobbies, work or whatever else comes to mind. :P :D So what? :hmm:

DJ

Kevin Bonham
19-11-2008, 10:06 PM
My uni suggested for people to be there 15 mins early, and once the actual exam time started no one else was allowed admission. As Kevin says, it is very distracting to other people who actually do bother to show up on time for late people to meander in at their leisure and make noise etc.

My old uni appears to still allow late entry to exams for up to half an hour after the end of reading time.


Allowing zero lateness is a bit harsh; I'd suggest requiring players not at their boards by start of play to report to a marshall and being allowed in at, say, twenty minutes with that much off their clocks, with the punctual player permitted to leave the venue to get a bit of air, cup of coffee etc. That would serve as a disincentive to the offender without the extreme of a forfeit.

I think this is a very good solution.

Phil Bourke
20-11-2008, 09:51 AM
I too like Ian's suggestion. One question though, if the late player isn't there at the 20 min mark, is the game forfeited. I think the 1 hour is way too excessive and would even advocate that Ian's suggestion be amended to "Players arriving after the start of the game will be allowed to make their way to the board 15 mins after the commencement of the game. Players not having arrived at this point of time will be forfeited in this game."

I would also like to include some provision for continual offenders in this category, perhaps a fine of some sort, 10% of prizemoney or 50% of the entry fee, whichever is the greater amount. With the contingency that titled players gaining free entry will pay 50% of the entry charged to the other players :)

Yes it may be a waste of time, but it is fun and all discussion that may lead to an improvement cannot be a complete waste :)

MichaelBaron
20-11-2008, 10:47 AM
Arguably all debates on this Forum are a complete waste of time and all of us would be better off devoting the time to chess study, family, other hobbies, work or whatever else comes to mind. :P :D So what? :hmm:

DJ

Very true :clap:

Ian Rout
20-11-2008, 11:21 AM
I too like Ian's suggestion. One question though, if the late player isn't there at the 20 min mark, is the game forfeited. I think the 1 hour is way too excessive and would even advocate that Ian's suggestion be amended to "Players arriving after the start of the game will be allowed to make their way to the board 15 mins after the commencement of the game. Players not having arrived at this point of time will be forfeited in this game."

Yes I think 20 minutes is about the point where it's reasonable to forfeit no-shows. I agree with the view that loss of the game, which is pretty much the ultimate sanction apart from being thrown out entirely, is severe for being a couple of minutes late. But I don't think it's reasonable for people to saunter in late as they wish especially at an event of this standing where a bit of professionalism is not an unreasonable expectation.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 11:47 AM
A blanket rule that players are forfeited if they more than half an hour late is a good compromise.

Miranda
20-11-2008, 01:34 PM
A blanket rule that players are forfeited if they more than half an hour late is a good compromise.
You do occasionally say things that make sense!

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 01:49 PM
You do occasionally say things that make sense!
:clap: :owned: ;) :eek: :hmm:

road runner
20-11-2008, 02:30 PM
You do occasionally say things that make sense!In Jono's own words, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. ;)

Garrett
20-11-2008, 03:41 PM
You do occasionally say things that make sense!

:) :P

I couldn't help but LOL when I read this ! he he

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2008, 06:02 PM
:) :P

I couldn't help but LOL when I read this ! he he
Hmm, the exuberance of youth ;):eh:

Bill Gletsos
20-11-2008, 09:25 PM
It appears from Shaun Press's blog that the FIDE Rules Commission has not only changed the wording of Article 6.7 but they have also changed the forfeit time to zero minutes as in the current Olympiad.

FIDE rules now allow organisers to forbid draw agreements before move x.

The draft wording was "The rules of the competition may specify that players cannot agree a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the agreement of the arbiter or his representative." however at this time I am unaware of the actual wording.

What apparently is clear is that the laws do not appear to allow the arbiter to reject claims of a draw by triple repetition even if they occur before move x.

Appafrently the Rules Commission has also decided that Artcile 10.2 will now apply to Blitz games. This will likely cause a nightmare for arbiters.
As such i can well see lightning in future no longer being 5 min games but 3 mins plus 2 secs per move.

I believe other changes are:

Articles 6.10, 9.6 and C5 have all had the words "even with the most unskilled counterplay" removed.

If these changes are approved by the general assembly next week they will come into force from 1st July 2009.

Kevin Bonham
20-11-2008, 09:36 PM
Shaun's report (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/11/rules-and-tournament-regulations.html) is fascinating reading. If it is all accurate then the process is a shambles and it makes one wonder why they bother to consult so much in advance if things are then amended ad hoc on the day.

On Shaun's account the Committee has gone for something along the lines of if you are late at all, you forfeit unless the arbiter decides otherwise. If so this is a bad rule - too much power for the arbiter and not enough specification of how it would be used. But hopefully if that is how it is the General Assembly will knock it on the head.

eclectic
20-11-2008, 09:44 PM
Shaun's report (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2008/11/rules-and-tournament-regulations.html) is fascinating reading. If it is all accurate then the process is a shambles and it makes one wonder why they bother to consult so much in advance if things are then amended ad hoc on the day.

On Shaun's account the Committee has gone for something along the lines of if you are late at all, you forfeit unless the arbiter decides otherwise. If so this is a bad rule - too much power for the arbiter and not enough specification of how it would be used. But hopefully if that is how it is the General Assembly will knock it on the head.

yes i can't see why there is discretion allowed for being a bit late but none allowed for when a mobile phone goes off

Igor_Goldenberg
21-11-2008, 08:52 AM
Appafrently the Rules Commission has also decided that Artcile 10.2 will now apply to Blitz games. This will likely cause a nightmare for arbiters.
As such i can well see lightning in future no longer being 5 min games but 3 mins plus 2 secs per move.

From the player point of view (which FIDE doesn't usually care about) 10.2 is important only if you don't have an increment. If position is drawn and you have at least 2sec increment, you must be able to hold it. If you can't, you deserve to lose.
In a guillotine scenario it's different, because if you have 30s against 1m in a position you can easily hold, but cannot force a draw, then you are lost whatever you do.
However, 10.2 usually applies in situation when you don't need it and does not apply when you really need it.
For that reason I personally prefer 3+2 or 4+1 (then 5 0).

Capablanca-Fan
21-11-2008, 09:02 AM
From Shaun Press's blog:


One big discussion (of which I was involved in) was section 6.7, dealing with forfeit time. At this Olympiad it has been set to 0 minutes, which even the meeting chair (Gijssen) accepted was against the current laws of chess.
See, told you! And that's quite an admission from Gijssen who has shown an inability to understand the wording of rules before (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929)if they get in the way of his whims


I had always had problems with the wording of the old rule (in that I believed it did not allow the organisers to reduce the forfeit time to below an hour) and after much back and forth I proposed a new wording, which I believed added clarity to the wording. In my proposal I suggested a default forfeit time of 30 minutes, but also allowed the arbiter discretion as to what would happen if that time was exceeded.
This also backs up what I said: that the "unless" clause allowed the arbiter or organizer to waive the default only.


The motion went forward, but 30 minutes was suddenly replaced by 0 minutes by the chair. (If this was a formal meeting I would have been entitled to object). The committee voted 8-7 in favour (a number of negatives were based on the time, not the wording), but the whole meeting voted 40-20 in favour. I then tried to move a motion changing the default time to 30 minutes but Gijssen simply said "Moving on to the next item".
Another example of Gijssen simply getting what he wants.

Garvinator
21-11-2008, 09:06 AM
But hopefully if that is how it is the General Assembly will knock it on the head.
Does the GA have the ability to move amendments, or just accept/decline 'recommendations' from the Rules Committee?

The reason I ask is that if they can only accept/decline, then if the GA decides to decline the zero minute forfeit rule, then we are back to being stuck with the one hour.

From following the debate here, most people seem comfortable with either a 15 or 30 minute forfeit window and that one hour grace is way too long. I would like to see the forfeit window being shortened to either 15 or 30 minutes. Would make things a lot of easier in club chess for re-pairing players.

Garvinator
21-11-2008, 09:16 AM
From Shaun Press's blog:I got the impression that Shaun is not a Campo fan. He should have added. For those playing along at home ;)

Garvinator
21-11-2008, 09:17 AM
As such i can well see lightning in future no longer being 5 min games but 3 mins plus 2 secs per move.
Possibly not the worst side effect ;)

Bill Gletsos
21-11-2008, 10:16 AM
From Shaun Press's blog:


One big discussion (of which I was involved in) was section 6.7, dealing with forfeit time. At this Olympiad it has been set to 0 minutes, which even the meeting chair (Gijssen) accepted was against the current laws of chess.
See, told you! And that's quite an admission from Gijssen who has shown an inability to understand the wording of rules before (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6929)if they get in the way of his whimsThat is nothing more than Gijssen's opinion, nothing more nothing less. He has often had views that differed from the majority of the Rules Commission and has lost out when votes were taken.
In the draft of the rules that was circulated prior to Dresden was the following note in relation to Article 6.7:

Note: The actual Article gives the possibility to an organiser to change one hour to any other period, but the organisers did not apply this possibility. Nevertheless, reading the actual discussion it is suggested to change the one-hour period to a shorter period. The proposal is 30 minutes, although it is not a real change. There are different opinions regarding this Article .Let us see what happens in Dresden. By the way ,this Article applies also for Rapid and Blitz games. It is possible for Rapid games to fix for instance 5 minutes and for Blitz games 2 minutes.



I had always had problems with the wording of the old rule (in that I believed it did not allow the organisers to reduce the forfeit time to below an hour) and after much back and forth I proposed a new wording, which I believed added clarity to the wording. In my proposal I suggested a default forfeit time of 30 minutes, but also allowed the arbiter discretion as to what would happen if that time was exceeded.
This also backs up what I said: that the "unless" clause allowed the arbiter or organizer to waive the default only.Again just Shaun's opinion. Just because Shaun apparently did not realise that the "unless" applied to both the time and the penalty does not make it so.
I do agree that due to its poor wording this article requires rewording to remove any misunderstanding, and hopefully the new wording will have done this.


The motion went forward, but 30 minutes was suddenly replaced by 0 minutes by the chair. (If this was a formal meeting I would have been entitled to object). The committee voted 8-7 in favour (a number of negatives were based on the time, not the wording), but the whole meeting voted 40-20 in favour. I then tried to move a motion changing the default time to 30 minutes but Gijssen simply said "Moving on to the next item".
Another example of Gijssen simply getting what he wants.Yes, the meeting structure is certainly strange.

MichaelBaron
21-11-2008, 02:29 PM
With all these changes...i am a bit worried how laws of chess will be altered next...may be fide will decide to have both players play with pieces of the same colour to avoid racist remarkes such as "white win more oftenthan black" or may be some new chess piece will be invented. :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
17-12-2008, 02:24 PM
According to Geurt in his latest column the proposal accepted by the Rules Commission was:


Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game, unless the arbiter decides otherwise. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify a different default time.Now when this reached the Executive Board there was some opposition to the 0 minutes and suggestions to replace it by 15 or 30 minutes. However no agreement was reached.

When it was put to the General Assembly, FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov proposed that the new wording should be:


Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game.This allowed for no exceptions and all tournament organisers had to accept 0 minutes and the arbiter had no ability to accept any excuse.

No agreement could be reached and the General Assembly agreed to that the Presidential Board shall make the final decision in February or March 2009.

William AS
17-12-2008, 05:55 PM
According to Geurt in his latest column the proposal accepted by the Rules Commission was:

This allowed for no exceptions and all tournament organisers had to accept 0 minutes and the arbiter had no ability to accept any excuse.

No agreement could be reached and the General Assembly agreed to that the Presidential Board shall make the final decision in February or March 2009.

This is madness!:doh: FIDE is getting sillier every day!:doh: After the way they ran the Olympiad I thought it could not get worse but I was clearly wrong.:wall: To allow psychotic bureaucrats to run any organization is a recipe for disaster and FIDE is no exception. While I regard players arriving late at the board as very poor form and would be happy to have the forfiet time reduced to 10 or 15 minutes. To allow no flexibility at all is much worse than the current 1 hour forfiet time. When running chess events my first priority is bums on seats and people enjoying themselves playing chess in a comfortable and congenial environment. FIDE and some other chess administrators seem to forget this principle and then wonder why there are not more people playing the game. Grandmaster tournaments run as small round robins where the experienced players are paid large amounts of money can be run under stricter conditions, but not the general run of events, especially if there is a large number of people some of which are new to competition chess. To be too rigid in the administration of the average chess event would be very bad for the future of the game.

eclectic
17-12-2008, 06:03 PM
i can't remember where i saw it but some actor said that 80% of success consisted of being on time

indeed the great konstantin stanislavsky (of method acting fame) would cancel an entire theatre rehearsal if any of his actors dared to turn up late on the grounds that the entire atmosphere was then irrevocably ruined

do employers put up with job candidates turning up 15 minutes late?

what's so hard about working out when a session begins and turning up ahead of time?

personally :clap: :clap: :clap: to the fide president for wanting it 0 minutes no exceptions

word of the day:

PUNCTUALITY

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 06:50 PM
This is is crassness by a small but vocal group of chess politicians, but will lead to FIDE itself coming into disrepute and its edicts increasingly ignored.

Oepty
17-12-2008, 07:01 PM
i can't remember where i saw it but some actor said that 80% of success consisted of being on time

indeed the great konstantin stanislavsky (of method acting fame) would cancel an entire theatre rehearsal if any of his actors dared to turn up late on the grounds that the entire atmosphere was then irrevocably ruined

do employers put up with job candidates turning up 15 minutes late?

what's so hard about working out when a session begins and turning up ahead of time?

personally :clap: :clap: :clap: to the fide president for wanting it 0 minutes no exceptions

word of the day:

PUNCTUALITY

Punctuality is very important, and I think players who just turn up late are wrong, but the rule needs some flexibility. There could be reasons beyond the control of a player that mean they are late. Players can come up with excuses I guess once or twice but it will soon be come apparent that they are just running late and their excuses will be ignored.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
17-12-2008, 07:04 PM
With all these changes...i am a bit worried how laws of chess will be altered next...may be fide will decide to have both players play with pieces of the same colour to avoid racist remarkes such as "white win more oftenthan black" or may be some new chess piece will be invented. :hmm:
Or else the white pieces will have to apologize to the black ones ;):lol:

William AS
17-12-2008, 08:12 PM
i can't remember where i saw it but some actor said that 80% of success consisted of being on time

indeed the great konstantin stanislavsky (of method acting fame) would cancel an entire theatre rehearsal if any of his actors dared to turn up late on the grounds that the entire atmosphere was then irrevocably ruined

do employers put up with job candidates turning up 15 minutes late?

what's so hard about working out when a session begins and turning up ahead of time?

personally :clap: :clap: :clap: to the fide president for wanting it 0 minutes no exceptions

word of the day:

PUNCTUALITY

While punctuality is a desirable trait it is completely foreign to the psychology of 90% of humans. Stanislavsky may have had that method of dealing with latecomers and as their employer he had that right, but that does not necessarily mean that his tactic was the best way, and, most importantly chess tournament organisers in most cases are not the entrants employers but their service providers and the players can and will vote with their feet.:doh:

Garvinator
17-12-2008, 08:39 PM
While punctuality is a desirable trait it is completely foreign to the psychology of 90% of humans. Stanislavsky may have had that method of dealing with latecomers and as their employer he had that right, but that does not necessarily mean that his tactic was the best way, and, most importantly chess tournament organisers in most cases are not the entrants employers but their service providers and the players can and will vote with their feet.:doh:
and players also vote with their feet when rounds do not start as scheduled and the players put the blame for it at the hands of the organisers/arbiters for being disorganised.

With a zero forfeit time, I am certain that almost all those who claim that being on time is too difficult, will suddenly be early for the start, making the organisers and arbiters jobs so much easier.

William AS
17-12-2008, 11:01 PM
and players also vote with their feet when rounds do not start as scheduled and the players put the blame for it at the hands of the organisers/arbiters for being disorganised.

With a zero forfeit time, I am certain that almost all those who claim that being on time is too difficult, will suddenly be early for the start, making the organisers and arbiters jobs so much easier.

Rounds starting on time and the forfiet time are two entirely different issues.
Sorry to disallusion you,:wall: with human psychology as it is, a zero forfiet time would mean that maybe 30% of the latecomers will suddenly be on time and the other 70% would decide that there is no point in turning up at all. This would soon make the organizers jobs very easy, no players = no tournament = no work = no more chess.:( With round starting times, starting the first round on time and starting following rounds on time are also separate issues, organizers should be able to start the following rounds on time in most cases despite the best efforts of anarchists and latecomers but the first round is much more difficult. The first round of a tournament has to contend with with one of the major problems of human psychology, people always leave making a decision to the last moment and organizers need to factor that into their planning to minimize its effects. Any attempt to go against the basics of human nature by brute force or bureaucratic pedantry is doomed to spectacular failure.:wall: :rolleyes: :)

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2008, 12:27 AM
Rounds starting on time and the forfiet time are two entirely different issues.
Sorry to disallusion you,:wall: with human psychology as it is, a zero forfiet time would mean that maybe 30% of the latecomers will suddenly be on time and the other 70% would decide that there is no point in turning up at all.

I very seriously doubt this.

Indeed I suspect that if anyone had bothered to compile stats on lateness at the previous Olympiad they would find that:

1. The change greatly reduced the number of cases in which a player was late.
2. Virtually nobody (including players who were previously habitually late) boycotted the Olympiad on account of the change.

At lower level the motivation is obviously not as great but I am extremely confident that the institution of a well publicised zero-lateness rule at club level would, over time, decrease the rate of late arrival by over 95% and deter only a handful of players from competing.

This is not a conclusive argument in favour of such a policy and indeed I don't support one at all. However given that you used the term "psychotic" further up the thread as hyperbole for a disagreement in attitude/approach, I'm inclined to question your knowledge of "psychology" as it applies to this case.

Basil
27-12-2008, 10:56 PM
I am an habitual late person. Nothing nurtures this appalling deficiency more than appeasing accommodation from the wife/ boss/ arbiter/ court. See Chamberlain q.v. as told by Jono, Duggan and other right-minded people with a clue.

I do believe late-comers should be permitted in some instances, however I would like to see hoops/ procedures/ penalties, as opposed to merely rocking up on one's own good time and playing as if nothing had happened.