Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: article 9.5

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310

    article 9.5

    Last week at my club, there was a correct claim for 50 move draw which was granted.

    According to article 9.5, if this claim was rejected, time penalties are introduced. With the use of dgt's, does this mean this rule is now outdated.

    For instance, the rules states if the person has more than two minutes- deduct half of his/her available time. Well available time would include the increment time as well. Not just the time stated on the clock.

    Further thoughts/disagreements.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Listen man....there's an Arbiter's corner thread, alright.

    AR

  3. #3
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Last week at my club, there was a correct claim for 50 move draw which was granted.

    According to article 9.5, if this claim was rejected, time penalties are introduced. With the use of dgt's, does this mean this rule is now outdated.

    For instance, the rules states if the person has more than two minutes- deduct half of his/her available time. Well available time would include the increment time as well. Not just the time stated on the clock.

    Further thoughts/disagreements.
    I disagree with you.
    Whether its digital or analog makes no difference.

    Article 9.5 states
    If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

    The intention is clear. The increment is irrelevant.
    The arbiter reduces the time on the clock as it currently stands in accordance with the article.
    The arbiter

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I disagree with you.
    Whether its digital or analog makes no difference.

    Article 9.5 states
    If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

    The intention is clear. The increment is irrelevant.
    The arbiter reduces the time on the clock as it currently stands in accordance with the article.
    The arbiter

    and as was one of my queries, perhaps the rule needs to be re written to allow for increment play, the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play.

    I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play.
    Why does it need to be "harsh"? The rule, as is, achieves much the same effect whether TC is guillotine or incremental.

    You really are a dangerous person gray. Sadistic!

    AR

  6. #6
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    and as was one of my queries, perhaps the rule needs to be re written to allow for increment play, the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play.
    I agree with Ar.
    There is no requirement for it to be harsh.
    In fact as it stands there is a maximum penalty of 3 minutes anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.
    I see no reason to change it.

  7. #7
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I see no reason to change it.
    my main point was that some of the rules as they are at the moment should be reviewed now that increments are used. Werent most of the rules written when no increment play was the only way to go.

    So let me understand this Bill, you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    There is no requirement for it to be harsh.
    i didnt say it has to be harsh, i said that the penalty 'harshness' has changed from when guillotine was the 'only' method of time control.

    The penalty now is less with increments. I am saying that the penalty with increments should be brought into line to the same standard as before increments.

  9. #9
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    my main point was that some of the rules as they are at the moment should be reviewed now that increments are used. Werent most of the rules written when no increment play was the only way to go.
    There are a number of increment rules that are odd. For instance, situations where players can move in and out of being required to score (for this reason increments <30 secs are not ideal in games where scoring is desired.)

    So let me understand this Bill, you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?
    I think that triple repeat situation we were talking about will occur sometime and would be surprised if it has not already. Also that is quite a serious case - the player either gets a draw on the spot, or doesn't.

    As for the case you mention, incorrect 50 move draw claims must be very rare, but incorrect triple rep claims are really quite common. I have arbited at least two and been on the receiving end of one. (The one where I was on the receiving end was very lucky because there was a triple rep but opponent claimed it at the wrong time, and I went on to win.)

    I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.
    Too impractical - clocks generally won't do it, you'd have to have an arbiter standing over them adjusting the clock every move. Also they might get away with not scoring then, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

    If this was to be changed, I'd put something like:

    9.5c. In a game or final phase of a game where thirty seconds or more is added to the player's clocks after each move, if the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than four minutes on his clock, the arbiter shall deduct three minutes from the claimant's remaining time. If the claimant has between one and four minutes, the arbiter shall reduce the claimant's remaining time to one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

    This is still less harsh than what is there for set-time games and I suspect the Rules Committee has many bigger fish to fry in the current review. (Like my proposed anti-Geurtification of 10.2 which has, to my surprise, made it to "final proposal" stage with just a very small change. )

    Remember that a player who repeatedly makes obviously wrong draw claims to gain thinking time can be given the raspberry under Article 12.1. 9.5 exists to deal with honest errors and therefore exactly how harsh it is doesn't really matter that much. Remember also that the opponent always gets 3 minutes.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    There are a number of increment rules that are odd. For instance, situations where players can move in and out of being required to score (for this reason increments <30 secs are not ideal in games where scoring is desired.)
    The interpretation i have heard of up here is that as soon as you go under 5 minutes with less than 30 secs per move, you dont have to record anymore. Is this incorrect? I think this is how it is played up here. Does this need changing?


    Too impractical - clocks generally won't do it, you'd have to have an arbiter standing over them adjusting the clock every move. Also they might get away with not scoring then, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
    I meant a rule change, not a clock change

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,047
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    . . . you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?
    Change defective or obsolete rules, by all means. But this ought to be done on a rule-by-rule basis and not en masse for the sake of it.

    AR

  12. #12
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    The interpretation i have heard of up here is that as soon as you go under 5 minutes with less than 30 secs per move, you dont have to record anymore. Is this incorrect? I think this is how it is played up here. Does this need changing?
    Art 8.4 says "If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1." It does not say "no longer obliged" and reads as clearly in present tense.

    I do think it is a bit irregular, but if you let players stop scoring permanently then it is too easy for players (in events not constantly supervised) to say "I've got 14 mins on my clock now but I only had four and a half left on move 20 and have been blitzing ever since then" when this may not be actually true. The best solutions are to either simply not use sub-30 sec add-ons in long games, or else keep them so small that it is unlikely to matter (10 secs is sometimes used to avoid guillotine issues incl. Art 10.2 - although IMO both these reasons for using it are overstated).

    I meant a rule change, not a clock change
    But are you suggesting a player should have their increment reduced as a penalty? If so, how do you implement it?
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Art 8.4 says "If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1." It does not say "no longer obliged" and reads as clearly in present tense.
    just want to clarify, this interpretation that is quite often used up here is incorrect. A player who has less than 30 seconds increment is to record resume recording when they have more than 5 minutes on their clock.

    Interesting situation then, the player has a 20 second increment, the player has been under 5 minutes for quite a few moves, then they go over the 5 minutes and they then have to start recording. If this was both players situation, then they would have no clue what move it was etc.


    But are you suggesting a player should have their increment reduced as a penalty? If so, how do you implement it?
    cant the clocks be adjusted for this situation?

  14. #14
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    just want to clarify, this interpretation that is quite often used up here is incorrect. A player who has less than 30 seconds increment is to record resume recording when they have more than 5 minutes on their clock.
    It may be that the interpretation you mention is common, I don't know. I think this rule is a bit of a joke whichever way you interpret it and this is one reason why it is not a good idea to use such increments.

    I think my interpretation is much closer to what the rule actually literally says but I wouldn't say an arbiter who used the other one was totally "wrong".

    Interesting situation then, the player has a 20 second increment, the player has been under 5 minutes for quite a few moves, then they go over the 5 minutes and they then have to start recording. If this was both players situation, then they would have no clue what move it was etc.
    This is why the rule as literally written is silly for these particular increments. Players moving in and out of having to score is silly, players being able to cop out of scoring by saying "look I had 4:59 on move 15" is silly.

    cant the clocks be adjusted for this situation?
    I expect some could but what about the more basic models? Do they allow increments for each player to be reset midgame individually?
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It may be that the interpretation you mention is common, I don't know. I think this rule is a bit of a joke whichever way you interpret it and this is one reason why it is not a good idea to use such increments.
    agreed

    I think my interpretation is much closer to what the rule actually literally says but I wouldn't say an arbiter who used the other one was totally "wrong".
    hence why some rules i believe need to be re written. either adjustment to the current rules, or a different set of rules for increment and non increment play.

    This is why the rule as literally written is silly for these particular increments. Players moving in and out of having to score is silly, players being able to cop out of scoring by saying "look I had 4:59 on move 15" is silly.
    I have done this under the interpretation up, not as bad as you illustrate though. Had a few games where i have had say 5:20 secs on my clock for a few moves(less than 30 sec increment) and have allowed my clock to run under 5 min so i dont have to record anymore.


    I expect some could but what about the more basic models? Do they allow increments for each player to be reset midgame individually?
    i have not been able to work out how to do it yet. Different increments can be set at the start of the game, but i dont know about mid game after starting with the same increment. Can anyone else help on this matter (maybe i might have to create a new thread on this matter)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. incremental time control
    By Garvinator in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 17-03-2005, 07:16 PM
  2. Article 9.2 Question
    By Rincewind in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 27-12-2004, 11:32 AM
  3. Article on Junior win
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-07-2004, 02:01 PM
  4. Volunteering
    By BroadZ in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 30-04-2004, 10:11 AM
  5. Rogers article in SUnday Herald about Zonals
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 21-04-2004, 12:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •