Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 398
  1. #16
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,164
    I think Bill is right. Harsh, but those are the rules.

  2. #17
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.
    Unfortunately the arbiter in these examples is not witnessing the play so he can only decide based on the evidence provided by the players themselves. I guess you should take B at his word if A is unsure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.

    My 7-y-o son received a goldfish yesterday. He named him "Blitzen".
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #18
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    I think Bill is right. Harsh, but those are the rules.
    I'm starting to come around to Bill's way of thinking too. However, I could imagine it might be a difficult sell to a Player B with his blood up.

    BTW I realised later I used the same naming for cases and players. Sorry about the confusion.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #19
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    sorry Bill. I reckon I'm with Bazza on this - though I'd be a little more decisive and declare the game a draw. I just don't like to waste my time and other people's. If I were one of the players I'd simply offer a draw too.

    It just doesn't seem right to award a full point to Player A. Let's hope you won't be an arbiter when I'm Player B cos I just about reckon you'd make me quite upset with you mate. I think you're wrong in your reasoning and Bazza was right to characterise this as "one player's word against anothers's".
    Hopefully you noticed I said I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

    I can think fo a number of NSW Arbiters who are IA's who I know have ruled that A is the winner in case A.

  5. #20
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.

    I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
    The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.
    The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    . . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.
    Then I disagree with 'em too.

    It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

    AR

  7. #22
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout

    I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
    The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.
    That's true, but the situation would hardly ever happen in normal chess, especially with guillotine finishes flying the way of the pterodactyl, and an arbiter would normally be watching.

  8. #23
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    . . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.
    Then I disagree with 'em too.

    It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.
    Your [censored] of an opponent may be an equally honest person.
    He may truly believe that he released the piece before you called flag just as much as you truly believe that he didnt.
    The arbiter can only go by what he sees on the board.

    Also take the following example.

    Player AR claims his opponent touched a piece and left his queen on prise.
    Player [censored] denies the allegation.
    Player AR is in a losing position. Player AR is a very honorable person.
    There are no witnesses.

    The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.

    The moral is both situations are the same
    If Player [censored] wants to be a [censored] and lie then there is nothing the arbiter can do without a witness.

  9. #24
    Account Permanently Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,680
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    . . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.
    Then I disagree with 'em too.

    It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

    AR
    I remember watching the debate on the old board about the definition of
    "completes the move ". Was the outcome of the debate such that you can complete a move even though your flag has fallen?

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.
    I appreciate all this Bill.

    But mate, 'playing on' is a totally different ruling to awarding a full point. So, that's why I reckon the arbiter should say, 'draw'. It's the diplomatic choice, surely?

    AR

  11. #26
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout

    I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
    The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.
    That's true, but the situation would hardly ever happen in normal chess, especially with guillotine finishes flying the way of the pterodactyl, and an arbiter would normally be watching.
    Overall I think your probably right.
    I have seen it at least once in normal chess but that was back in the early 90's.
    Could still happen in grade matches. They still have guillotine finishes.

  12. #27
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by starter
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    . . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.
    Then I disagree with 'em too.

    It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

    AR
    I remember watching the debate on the old board about the definition of
    "completes the move ". Was the outcome of the debate such that you can complete a move even though your flag has fallen?
    A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
    The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.

  13. #28
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.
    I appreciate all this Bill.

    But mate, 'playing on' is a totally different ruling to awarding a full point. So, that's why I reckon the arbiter should say, 'draw'. It's the diplomatic choice, surely?

    AR
    I can appreciate your viewpoint, I just dont agree with it.

    The "play on" is effectively awarding the full point because you game was losing anyway.

    The issue is what if you were the player who had legitimately mated and your opponent claimed a win on time. You would be pretty peeved that the arbiter declared it a draw instead of the win.

    In the circumstances the opinion is whats happened on the board is what matters. There is a mate. Hence player A wins.

  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Look Bill, shut your fingertips alright. I'm getting all frustrated here. I can't help meself thinking I'm player B and doing a bit of a Michael Douglas. As far as I'm concerned, it's a G5 wherein time is of the essence. He's bloody lost on time. Period.

    AR

  15. #30
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
    The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.
    I believe the terminology is "made" vs "complete".

    Once the requirements of Art 3 are satisfied the move is "made" (Article 4.7), once the clock is press the move is "complete" (Article 6.8 ).

    To checkmate, stalemate, draw or enter a dead position the move simply needs to be "made". Although Article 6.8 also says the move is "considered complete" if it finishs the game.

    Finishing the game can be more than checkmate or stalemate. Moves that can finish the game include drawn by repetition of position, drawn by 50 move rule or moves resulting in dead positions. Of course the draw claims can be difficult to prove in without a record of moves.

    Games can also be finished without moves, of course, resigning or agreeing to a draw.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Chessbase: Notes & Queries
    By arosar in forum Computer Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 30-01-2006, 10:33 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
  •