Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29
  1. #16
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I've had this happen a few times at the Brisbane Club when a player is absent. Normally I try to re-pair games, but sometimes the other player prefers a forfeit win on the night.
    Slightly off-topic, but re-pairing games (if it were allowed) could be dangerous -- suppose a new pairing is made, the game gets underway, and the player who was absent from the original pairing suddenly walks in prior to the default time.

    In 'C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments' it is written that published pairings cannot be changed unless two players are paired to meet for a second time:

    Code:
    D.10
    Once published, the pairings shall not be changed unless they are found to violate C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once).
    Last edited by Andrew Hardegen; 07-04-2017 at 11:29 PM.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  2. #17
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    The 2014 rules spelled out how a player should correctly claim a win on time. They did not mention whether the arbiter could or should call flag-fall, but there was no rule in 'Appendix A. Rapidplay' that overrode 6.8:

    Code:
    6.8      	
    A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when either player has made a valid claim to that effect.
    There is nothing in the new 'Appendix A: Rapidplay' or 'Appendix B: Blitz' that contradicts this either. So I believe the arbiter should rule on flag-fall, whatever the time control. Some players may not be used to this: the new phrasing may reduce contention as it makes it clear that the arbiter is entitled to do so.
    Yes, this is what I have been doing since 2014 - always calling flagfalls when I've seen them in any form of the game and yes there has occasionally been surprise and/or debate (I've always announced it at the start of blitz/rapid tournaments, but players sometimes don't listen).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham

    Games without increment including quickplay finishes have been moved to Guidelines section III as FIDE is trying to phase out such games.
    This is interesting given I've been playing some Sunday league games (albeit not FIDE-rated) in Germany with analogue clocks - time control is 40 moves in 2 hours + 1 hour to finish. Although when I play for the club's first team (ratings typically range from 1800-2100, compared to 1700-1900 in the second team) it is with digital clocks and increments (100 minutes + 30 seconds per move, with an extra 50 minutes at move 40).

  3. #18
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    There is nothing in the new 'Appendix A: Rapidplay' or 'Appendix B: Blitz' that contradicts this either. So I believe the arbiter should rule on flag-fall, whatever the time control. Some players may not be used to this: the new phrasing may reduce contention as it makes it clear that the arbiter is entitled to do so.
    Yes I think this was the intention - just to make it completely clear that the arbiter can call flagfall.

  4. #19
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    Slightly off-topic, but re-pairing games (if it were allowed) could be dangerous -- suppose a new pairing is made, the game gets underway, and the player who was absent from the original pairing suddenly walks in prior to the default time.

    In 'C.04.2 General handling rules for Swiss Tournaments' it is written that published pairings cannot be changed unless two players are paired to meet for a second time:

    Code:
    D.10
    Once published, the pairings shall not be changed unless they are found to violate C.04.1.b (Two players shall not play against each other more than once).
    This issue is sometimes avoided by declaring that all published pairings are provisional pairings until a certain defined time, at which point the final pairing is made. Hence they are not published pairings as such; they are only published provisional pairings. Re-pairing a pairing that has been published as final is generally not allowed, and should be avoided even if this results in multiple players receiving forfeit wins.

  5. #20
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Hardegen View Post
    Slightly off-topic, but re-pairing games (if it were allowed) could be dangerous -- suppose a new pairing is made, the game gets underway, and the player who was absent from the original pairing suddenly walks in prior to the default time.
    Which is why I normally wait until the forfeit time has elapsed or almost elapsed. I can recall only one case where the absent player arrived after I had re-paired.

    But I'm not recommending this for any event 'above' club level, as it's only useful where there is likely to be more than one unannounced absentee.

  6. #21
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    182
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Which is why I normally wait until the forfeit time has elapsed or almost elapsed. I can recall only one case where the absent player arrived after I had re-paired.

    But I'm not recommending this for any event 'above' club level, as it's only useful where there is likely to be more than one unannounced absentee.
    Potentially useful in some situations, certainly, but expressly forbidden by FIDE's General handling rules for Swiss tournaments. It may be an option for FIDE non-rated tournaments with faster time controls -- but if the ACF and FIDE say it is a bad idea, then I am not going to recommend it or do it myself.

    Anyhow, the time control for tournaments at my club is 90+30 and the longest games already run until late enough most evenings as it is -- I wouldn't want to ask people to wait around for an extra 30 minutes before they can be paired.
    Southern Suburbs Chess Club (Perth)
    www.southernsuburbschessclub.org.au

  7. #22
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    34
    * Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Using two hands to make a move, or pressing the clock without making a move, become "considered as an illegal move" (7.7.1 and 7.8.1). First offence two minutes added to opponent, second offence loss of game.
    If I completed an illegal move (I moved the rook to a square along a diagonal) and a few move later I used two hands to make a move then Lost my game?
    The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    FIDE Arbiter: Néstor Echeverría.

  8. #23
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,622
    Quote Originally Posted by DontAcceptDraw View Post
    If I completed an illegal move (I moved the rook to a square along a diagonal) and a few move later I used two hands to make a move then Lost my game?
    I think so. But this is not really clear in the new rules. It is only clear that a player loses for two illegal moves, for twice moving without pressing the clock, or for twice using two hands to make a move. If a player does one of one and one of another then perhaps " it shall be considered as an illegal move." means that they lose. But it should have been worded more clearly.

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    This issue is sometimes avoided by declaring that all published pairings are provisional pairings until a certain defined time, at which point the final pairing is made. Hence they are not published pairings as such; they are only published provisional pairings. Re-pairing a pairing that has been published as final is generally not allowed, and should be avoided even if this results in multiple players receiving forfeit wins.
    Yes. This our practice at Rooty Hill. Non-arrivals are a regular occurrence and (for non-FIDE rated tournamemts) we try to give players who actually turn up a game rather than a win by forfeit.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly playing at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Club Liaison Officer for NSWCA. See www.nswca.org.au for the latest NSWCA news.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  10. #25
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    I think so. But this is not really clear in the new rules. It is only clear that a player loses for two illegal moves, for twice moving without pressing the clock, or for twice using two hands to make a move. If a player does one of one and one of another then perhaps " it shall be considered as an illegal move." means that they lose. But it should have been worded more clearly.
    I have my doubts too. I tend to think that “using two hand” or “pressing the clock without making a move” are not illegal moves. The definition of ilegal move in 3.10.a says nothing about this. As I understand it, “it shall be considered as an illegal move” means that It isn’t an illegal move but this provides the same penalty.
    The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    FIDE Arbiter: Néstor Echeverría.

  11. #26
    CC FIDE Master Jesper Norgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by DontAcceptDraw View Post
    I have my doubts too. I tend to think that “using two hand” or “pressing the clock without making a move” are not illegal moves. The definition of ilegal move in 3.10.a says nothing about this. As I understand it, “it shall be considered as an illegal move” means that It isn’t an illegal move but this provides the same penalty.
    I also have doubts. In my view this could be mended in the articles by making them unequivocal and using 3.10

    3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
    3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9

    The articles that are seemingly defining illegal moves without being declared in article 3, are an abomination because they contradict the logic of article 3.10.

    The articles that define illegal moves that are defined out of scope (outside article 3) are 1.4.1, 7.5.2, 7.7.1 and 7.8.1. I have no idea why the articles were defined this way, instead of including them in article 3. Defining all illegal moves via article 3 avoids the hassle of having to define the rules as a negation, instead of which criteria must be met. Perhaps I can make this clearer by suggesting how it could have been done.

    My general view is that the articles were meant to be unequivocal, but they aren't. Instead this definition should be watertight IMHO:

    3.10 It is not allowed to capture the king of the opponent.
    3.11 A move must be made with one hand only. This is also true when capturing a piece, when castling or when promoting a piece.
    3.12 If a clock is used, it is not allowed to press the clock with one hand, and moving the piece(s) with the other hand in the same move.
    3.13 If a clock is used, it is not allowed to press the clock without making a move, except if the player's previous move had not been completed with a clock press.

    Renumbering of 3.10:
    3.14.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.13 have been fulfilled.
    3.14.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.13
    3.14.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.

    Now the definition of penalties in 7.7.2 and 7.8.2 are unnecessary because they are taken care of with 7.5.1 - 7.5.3. Also 7.7.1 and 7.8.1 can be eliminated. In case of Rapid or Blitz games, the definition of A.4.2 and (for Blitz) by B.2 is handling illegal moves, and inherit the definitions of article 3.

    It's cleaner and it's unequivocal. It is of course shorter too. Article 3 handles all types of illegal moves.
    Note that the goofup between

    6.2.2 A player must be allowed to stop his clock after making his move, even after the opponent has made his next move. The time between making the move on the chessboard and pressing the clock is regarded as part of the time allotted to the player.

    ... and ...

    7.8.1. If the player presses the clock without making a move, it shall be considered as an illegal move.

    This discrepancy in the new laws is taken care of by the exception mentioned in 3.13.

    Note that the illegal move of pushing a pawn to the last rank, but leaving it as a pawn, is still handled by 7.5.2 but also by 3.7.5.1 where it follows that the exchange of the pawn for a new piece is mandatory.

    The problem with the new articles is that there is confusion on whether an illegal move and a move considered an illegal move is the same. I assume that is what was the intention, but it doesn't work like this. And of course, if it is supposed to work the same way, why are alternate definitions of penalties like 7.7.2 and 7.8.2 necessary? It defies logic and increases the uncertainty of the definitions.

    I think the designers of the 7.7.1 and 7.8.1 definitions really wanted these to be handled as one, so that if you made a violation of pressing the clock without making a move, it is intended to be punished as an illegal move, and if you then made a normal illegal move, that would lose the game in a Standard game. It also means that the first violation of 7.7.1 or 7.8.1 in a Blitz game or a Rapid game, will lose the game right away.

    I'm interested to hear what could go wrong with the definitions of 3.10 to 3.14 as I have outlined above. Is this a possible solution to the gordic knot?
    Chess well played is imagination, calculation, observation, experience and memorization in order of importance.

  12. #27
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesper Norgaard View Post

    3.10 It is not allowed to capture the king of the opponent.
    3.11 A move must be made with one hand only. This is also true when capturing a piece, when castling or when promoting a piece.
    3.12 If a clock is used, it is not allowed to press the clock with one hand, and moving the piece(s) with the other hand in the same move.
    3.13 If a clock is used, it is not allowed to press the clock without making a move, except if the player's previous move had not been completed with a clock press.

    Renumbering of 3.10:
    3.14.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.13 have been fulfilled.
    3.14.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.13
    3.14.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves.
    I very much liked your definition of 3.10 to 3.14. It would be much easier for everyone.
    The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    FIDE Arbiter: Néstor Echeverría.

  13. #28
    CC FIDE Master Jesper Norgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    972
    Thank you, DontAcceptDraw. I think you are right, it would be much easier for everyone.
    Chess well played is imagination, calculation, observation, experience and memorization in order of importance.

  14. #29
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    34,622
    I think that Rules might balk at having all those provisions in Article 3. There is a philosophy that the "basic rules" define the rules of chess to be defined in any setting - even a casual game with no clocks and no scoring - and that rules to apply in tournaments go in the "competition rules". That said, this philosophy may be inconsistently applied, because moving the pieces with one hand only does not need to be a basic rule.

    I think listing all the items punishable in the same way as illegal move and having any violation of any of them subject to a single set of penalties is an obviously good idea. I think there's a good chance this will happen in the next cycle.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Laws of Chess draft changes 2017
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-03-2017, 03:01 PM
  2. Draft FIDE Laws of Chess 2013
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 17-10-2012, 05:10 PM
  3. 2009 Fide laws of chess- current situation
    By Garvinator in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27-12-2008, 09:06 AM
  4. Upcoming FIDE Laws Of Chess Revision
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 22-02-2008, 09:41 PM
  5. 2005 FIDE Laws of Chess on FIDE website finally correct
    By Bill Gletsos in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-07-2007, 05:57 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
  •