Page 3 of 27 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 398
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    something that i dont think anyone has noticed in this circumstance is that because the clock and board are not connected, player A can deliver mate after the clock has hit zero and mate will still be on the board. Now if clock time and the board could be frozen then this would be a simple question.

    the fact that a person can deliver mate on the board after time has expired is a big factor.

    the fact that the board says that player b is checkmated and so should win doesnt sit well with me when the clock also shows that time has run out.

    i believe that the game should be declared drawn or replayed depending on time

  2. #32
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    something that i dont think anyone has noticed in this circumstance is that because the clock and board are not connected, player A can deliver mate after the clock has hit zero and mate will still be on the board. Now if clock time and the board could be frozen then this would be a simple question.

    the fact that a person can deliver mate on the board after time has expired is a big factor.

    the fact that the board says that player b is checkmated and so should win doesnt sit well with me when the clock also shows that time has run out.
    That has always been the case and has never been in doubt.
    If players A's flag has been down for a while and player B has not noticed and player A then mates player B, then player A wins.
    You may not like it but them's the rules.

    What we have been discussing is where player A mates but player B claims a win on time.


    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    i believe that the game should be declared drawn or replayed depending on time
    Ok, when your the arbiter your opinion counts otherwise tough luck.
    Of course even as the arbiter your decision could get overturned on appeal.

  3. #33
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    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
    I really hope you end up being player A and some dopey arbiter declares it a draw.
    That will serve you right.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Ok, when your the arbiter your opinion counts otherwise tough luck.
    of course if i was arbiter my decision would be following the rules as they are written

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Of course even as the arbiter your decision could get overturned on appeal.
    appeal hey, couldnt that be removed

  5. #35
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    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.
    No this isnt correct.
    The game is not automatically drawn after repetition of position or the 50 move rule. In all cases the player must make the claim AND stop his clock. If his flag has fallen before he claims he loses.
    The interesting question here is what if he makes the claim, stops his clock but the flag has fallen.

  6. #36
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    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.
    No this isnt correct.
    The game is not automatically drawn after repetition of position or the 50 move rule. In all cases the player must make the claim AND stop his clock. If his flag has fallen before he claims he loses.
    The interesting question here is what if he makes the claim, stops his clock but the flag has fallen.
    Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #37
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions.
    Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.

  8. #38
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions.
    Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.
    As there are no scoresheets in Blitz and Rapid, if or how can draw claims be made? (9.2 and 9.3 cannot be followed).

    Are repetition and 50 move rules moot points without a scoresheet?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #39
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions.
    Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.
    As there are no scoresheets in Blitz and Rapid, if or how can draw claims be made? (9.2 and 9.3 cannot be followed).

    Are repetition and 50 move rules moot points without a scoresheet?
    In Blitz or rapid the repetition would need to be witnessed by the arbiter. If it was witnessed by a spectator(s) the arbiter would have to determine how reliable he believed them to be.

    As for the 50 move rule this is virtually out of the question unless witnessed and counted by the arbiter.

  10. #40
    CC Candidate Master Bob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    114
    Bill

    Blitz only:

    win / loss / draw

    Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

    Bob

  11. #41
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    Bill

    Blitz only:

    win / loss / draw

    Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

    Bob
    No Bob.
    Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

    Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.

    Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

    I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.

  12. #42
    CC Candidate Master Bob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    Bill

    Blitz only:

    win / loss / draw

    Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

    Bob
    No Bob.
    Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

    Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.



    Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

    I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.
    1: Semantics: ".... the players can appeal.............."
    I assume you mean "either player may appeal"
    I find it unlikely that a player that has lost would appeal if an arbiter declared him the winner!? - so this would mean your position only applies in th ecase of a draw decision and both players demand a result!

    2: Assume 1 above is a red herring.
    I assume that only the players of the board in question can appeal.

    So I have two people in dispute over one game.

    Generally I only have one person who feels that the wrong decision has been made.

    What appeal process is open to him/her in the middle of a blitz event ?

  13. #43
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    Bill

    Blitz only:

    win / loss / draw

    Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

    Bob
    No Bob.
    Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

    Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.



    Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

    I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.
    1: Semantics: ".... the players can appeal.............."
    I assume you mean "either player may appeal"
    I find it unlikely that a player that has lost would appeal if an arbiter declared him the winner!? - so this would mean your position only applies in th ecase of a draw decision and both players demand a result!
    I was assuming you wouldnt be so pedantic.
    Obviously it would be strange indeed for the winner to appeal the arbiters decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    [: Assume 1 above is a red herring.
    I assume that only the players of the board in question can appeal.
    Not necessarily.

    The game is between players A and B.
    The arbiter rules A has won. This means A wins the competition.
    Player C complains that the arbiter has got it wrong and that B should have won or maybe it should be a draw. If A does not win then Player D wins the comp or maybe ties with A.

    Player D could appeal.

    Given NSWCA has a Appeals Committee elected at its AGM, players in any NSWCA event can appeal to it at any time even after the event has concluded.
    This of course could have major effects. In a previous NSW State Championship(non lightning) an appeal was lodged after the final round against the arbiters decision by a player of than the two players involved in the game.
    The Appeals Committee unanimously upheld the appeal.
    The arbiter was severely criticised by the Appeals committee on a number of points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob1
    So I have two people in dispute over one game.

    Generally I only have one person who feels that the wrong decision has been made.

    What appeal process is open to him/her in the middle of a blitz event ?
    They can demand of the arbiter that he sets up an appeals committee then and there.
    A certain NSW player did this a few years back in the NSW State Lightning Championship.

    Since then we have announced prior to the start of the NSW Lightning Championships just who the Appeals Committe is. If they players have any complaints about who the Appeals Committee mayb be that can lodge a complaint prior to the start. No one has ever done this. However because the majority of people at the lightning have been competing in the tournament the Appeals Committee has at times consited of just 1 person(that person being a member of the NSWCA Appeals Committee).

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Hey chaps. I'm interested in your thoughts. I quote from the latest Arbiter's Notebook:

    "Question 2 In a regular game I had a King, Knight, and two pawns. My opponent only had a King. My opponent suddenly resigned as I was moving my King. I accepted his resignation and put the King back on the board, but did not look where I placed it.

    A spectator then went to the arbiter and informed him that it was stalemate. My opponent declared that he had resigned, because his position was lost, but during the following discussion he changed his mind and claimed a draw. The arbiter agreed with him. The game was not replayed, because due to the time trouble the score sheets were not up to date. What is your opinion about these two cases?"

    My view is that the resignation ended the game right there and then - pursuant to Article 5.1b. In his reply Gijssen does not cite this rule. This seems pretty straightforward, but any other opinions?

    Actually, the incident reminded me a story in Aus Chess into the 80's. In a game between Johansen and Rogers (forgot the colour for the moment), Dazza picked up the Q, moved it to another square without releasing it, after further thought moved it back to what he thought was the Q's original square and released the piece. Rogers then just captured the Q. Apparently some people were very disgusted with the end of this game. Dazza had to resign as his error had to be considered a 'move'. I'll have to go home and dig up the details - but does any old timer recall this story at all?

    May I say once again that people should buy Aus Chess into the 80's. It's up there with Zurich '53 and 2nd Piatigorsky.

    AR

  15. #45
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Hey chaps. I'm interested in your thoughts. I quote from the latest Arbiter's Notebook:

    "Question 2 In a regular game I had a King, Knight, and two pawns. My opponent only had a King. My opponent suddenly resigned as I was moving my King. I accepted his resignation and put the King back on the board, but did not look where I placed it.

    A spectator then went to the arbiter and informed him that it was stalemate. My opponent declared that he had resigned, because his position was lost, but during the following discussion he changed his mind and claimed a draw. The arbiter agreed with him. The game was not replayed, because due to the time trouble the score sheets were not up to date. What is your opinion about these two cases?"

    My view is that the resignation ended the game right there and then - pursuant to Article 5.1b. In his reply Gijssen does not cite this rule. This seems pretty straightforward, but any other opinions?
    Yes according to Article 5.1b the game ended immediately when the player resigned. Anything after that point is irrelevant.

    Geurt seems more interested in what the player said or did not say to the arbiter than actually answering the question. However to be fair he does say
    The arbiter only based his decision on the statement of a witness and it is clear that this is not correct
    Unfortunately it is not clear whether he means the arbiters decision was incorrect or just the arbiter was incorrect in just basing it on a witness.

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
  •