Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian CCC View Post
    Not quite sure why you use the word "tantamount". Could you explain?
    Just because of the clumsy FIDE English. The new 7.7.1 says "If a player uses two hands to make a single move (in case of castling, capturing or promotion), it shall be considered as an illegal move. " The use of the word "considered" makes it sound like it's not really an illegal move but they'll call it an illegal move anyway. The recent clarification makes it clear it will be treated exactly like any other illegal move in terms of cases of multiple such moves of different kinds.

    In the first article, there was some discussion about the fairness of the original decision given that if, under different circumstances, the move had been deemed illegal, it would have resulted in a second opportunity for black to promote to a queen. So, I just thought that it was interesting that, if the game had been played under the new rules, black's use of two hands to promote would have resulted in that second opportunity.
    Those "different circumstances" involved a rook never touching the promotion square because the player simply moves the pawn to the end and doesn't promote. In my view if a player promotes to an upside down rook with both hands then they are still required to promote to a rook under the new Laws. It is similar to if a player makes a promoting capture but fails to remove the captured piece, or puts a promoted piece on the board but fails to remove their own pawn. It could be argued that by making various illegal actions "illegal moves" FIDE have reduced the ways in which a person is committed to their intended move but I am sure this was not the intention.

  2. #32
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    926
    Okay, thanks, that clarifies the situation for me. What you've said makes sense, even if not clearly specified by the Laws. If a player places a piece (not a pawn) on a promotion square as part of an illegal move, that is the piece and square that should be used to complete the legal promotion move.

  3. #33
    CC FIDE Master Jesper Norgaard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian CCC View Post
    Not quite sure why you use the word "tantamount". Could you explain?
    It is quite simple, the word "tantamount" makes a bridge between the old laws (of 1.st of July 2014) where the move would not be illegal, and the new laws (of 1.st. of July 2017) where the move would be illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian CCC View Post
    In the first article, there was some discussion about the fairness of the original decision given that if, under different circumstances, the move had been deemed illegal, it would have resulted in a second opportunity for black to promote to a queen. So, I just thought that it was interesting that, if the game had been played under the new rules, black's use of two hands to promote would have resulted in that second opportunity.
    Yes you can view it as a second opportunity to promote to a queen, although it really is an obligation to promote to a queen, for instance the opportunity to promote to a bishop or a rook is rejected.

    I ask myself if this is true. It relies on that such a playoff game really would be handled under the article 8.3.1 as there were sufficient arbiters around (3 arbiters if I understand it correctly). However none of the video evidence seems to indicate any arbiter was recording the game on a score sheet, specified in 8.3.1.2 and to be able to do so you would have to be pretty close to the board I assume. If the game was not recorded, any illegal move determination would simply mean that Noritsyn would have lost the game instantly. This is another reason to criticize the organization of the playoff, to secure an adequate environment for such an event, there should have been extra queens on the side of the board, and the game should have been recorded in order to permit the greater protections by the law under the Competition Rules. Having a simple vinyl board makes it obvious no electronic means of capturing the game was in effect. It is however clear that the biggest culprit for the upturned rook incident was Noritsyn himself because he didn't know by heart that you MUST stop the clock instead of scrambling for a rook when you need a queen and there is none around. In chess you need to understand clearly what are your obligations and rights under the laws, to avoid becoming a victim of the law, as Noritsyn certainly did.

    Another detail that received a lot of scorn and criticism was the fact that Sambuev held the black queen in his hand for a lengthy period, right up to just after Noritsyn had executed his wrongful promotion (wrongful in the sense he wanted a queen, but didn't get one). I can sympathize with this feeling, but the fact is the laws are silent about fiddling with the captured pieces, so there is no law that indicates he did something wrong.

    I have always thought that the penalty for making an illegal move in Rapid and Blitz is Draconian (loss of the game). In my view it would be better if the penalty was instead to deduct half the time on the clock. FIDE seems to be adamant to deem a loss of the game for any technicality. Why they think that is more fair is anyone's guess, but for sure there has not been any consultation with players. I think a vote from the players of FIDE would lead to less Draconian penalties, many comments on the immediate loss of game if a single move has been executed with both hands, which can be quite difficult to maintain when you have to handle 2-3 pieces in a promotion with little time on the clock, to still remember not to use the other hand. If a player presses the clock instead of making a move, this is more likely to be an act of confusion than an act of deceit.
    Chess well played is imagination, calculation, observation, experience and memorization in order of importance.

  4. #34
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Jesper Norgaard View Post
    the fact is the laws are silent about fiddling with the captured pieces, so there is no law that indicates he did something wrong.
    This is true, and I understand the Appeals Committee decision, without being comfortable about the implications - the unavailability of equipment may well be a failing (whether of the arbiter, organiser or Black player) and the result is not chess as we understand the concept, but it's not an illegality. Possibily the law will be changed but I think it may be better to leave it as is, now that players will be more aware of how to cope with such circumstances, including bringing their own spare pieces to the board.

    A couple of hypotheticals that came to mind.

    1. Black stops the clock and asks for a Queen. White slips the original Queen onto the table and the arbiter sees it, thinks it was there all along, and penalises Black for stopping the clock without reason. Black later loses. Can Black appeal because the arbiter made a mistake, though not one of law?

    2. The arbiter, earlier in the game, sees the Queen in White's hand and directs him to put it on the table. Later Black uses it and wins. Can White appeal because there is no law that prevents him from keeping the Queen from Black's reach?

  5. #35
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    35,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    1. Black stops the clock and asks for a Queen. White slips the original Queen onto the table and the arbiter sees it, thinks it was there all along, and penalises Black for stopping the clock without reason. Black later loses. Can Black appeal because the arbiter made a mistake, though not one of law?
    Black can appeal and his appeal should be upheld if his version of events is accepted by the appeal committee. However, he should announce that he wishes to appeal the incorrect decision immediately, not after he has lost the game. Appeal committees tend to take an extremely dim view of players who wait until after they have lost before making an appeal and will sometimes even disallow an appeal for that reason alone.

    2. The arbiter, earlier in the game, sees the Queen in White's hand and directs him to put it on the table. Later Black uses it and wins. Can White appeal because there is no law that prevents him from keeping the Queen from Black's reach?
    White can appeal (a player can almost always appeal) but I would reject his appeal. Although white's action is not explicitly illegal, the arbiter's action is entirely within their discretion and appropriate under 12.2.2 act in the best interests of the competition, 12.2.3 ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and probably 12.2.1 ensure fair play.

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    Black stops the clock and asks for a Queen. White slips the original Queen onto the table and the arbiter sees it, thinks it was there all along, and penalises Black for stopping the clock without reason. Black later loses. Can Black appeal because the arbiter made a mistake, though not one of law?
    Sounds like arbiterial incompetence: why didn't he hear Black out for why he stopped the clock, and asked witnesses if he doesn't believe Black? KB's advice Black to announce right away his intent of appeal is important.
    1. In the USA, state after state votes to keep marriage as it's always been.
    The Left: judges should overrule the people.

    2. In Australia, the people vote to allow gay marriage.
    The Left: the minority should shut up and let the majority have its way.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Rook upside down and moves twice in one turn
    By DontAcceptDraw in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 13-06-2014, 09:54 AM
  2. CanBase II - Canadian games database
    By Hugh_Brodie in forum Overseas Tournament News and Results
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-06-2010, 03:33 AM
  3. Canadian BB targetted
    By PHAT in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-11-2005, 02:41 PM
  4. Canadian Open in Edmonton
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-07-2005, 02:01 PM
  5. Canadian Closed Ch
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-08-2004, 10:01 AM

Posting Permissions

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