Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 398
  1. #46
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    I get the impression that Geurt thinks he is not getting the full story and wants to make sure of his facts before saying anything specific on the case.

    I've seen him do this before, sometimes point blank refusing to comment on a question as he believes he is being set-up.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #47
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,376
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    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'.
    Exactly the same involving a rook happened here on board 1 in the final round of a weekender a few years ago. The loser was in a winning position at the time and missed out on =1st which instead went to his opponent.

  3. #48
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,376
    I think Barry's case is relatively straightforward and I agree with Bill - in general the player claiming the mate wins, the exception being where the player claiming the flagfall is certain but the player claiming the mate doesn't know. Even if A thinks he got the mate down in time I would give him the win.

    I'm not sure if there's any objective reason based on prioirty for favouring the mate. Both checkmate on the board (before a flagfall) and flagfall (before a mate) end the game. However, favouring the player with mate on the board prevents more cheating possibilities. B can cheat if he is checkmated, notices A's flag has fallen, and then immediately lodges a time claim. Actually the flag could have fallen several moves ago so there is plenty of scope for cheating if B's claim is preferred or if B is even given a draw. A can only cheat if B notices a flagfall and claims it while A has mate in one on the board. This will happen, but a lot less often. Not giving A a win thus seems to be a more radical departure from the spirit of expecting a player to prove a flagfall before mate occurs.

    Another thing. No matter what the players think about who claimed first, B must have stopped the clock, otherwise A wins. If B just says "time" that is not a valid claim and should be ignored.

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

    Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

    You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?

    AR
    Last edited by arosar; 27-01-2004 at 11:17 AM.

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I think Barry's case is relatively straightforward and I agree with Bill - in general the player claiming the mate wins, the exception being where the player claiming the flagfall is certain but the player claiming the mate doesn't know. Even if A thinks he got the mate down in time I would give him the win.
    Just quickly going back to Bazza's scenario - could we use 6.12 to enforce the mate? In other words, allow the game to continue normally anyway - hence, mate! Is this sound?

    Btw, dunno if this has been addressed, now that we have a coaching accreditation programme thanks to Matty - is there an arbiter accreditation programme here too?

    AR

  6. #51
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Just quickly going back to Bazza's scenario - could we use 6.12 to enforce the mate? In other words, allow the game to continue normally anyway - hence, mate! Is this sound?
    No. Firstly both flags had not fallen so 6.12 does not apply. Secondly if both flag falls had occurred and a time claim made before the checkmate then the ruling would be a draw, not continue play (Article B overrules).

    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Btw, dunno if this has been addressed, now that we have a coaching accreditation programme thanks to Matty - is there an arbiter accreditation programme here too?
    Good idea, perhaps a familiarisation course for players would be useful too.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #52
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

    Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

    You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?
    The +30s means that the players are obliged to keep the scoresheet up-to-date, even with less than 5 minutes on the clock (Art 8.4)

    I think I would judge the game be reconstructed on a second board using both players scoresheets and player A bring his scoresheet up to date in that process. Then warn player A that he should keep his scoresheet up to date henceforth and then restart the clocks. I don't think I would add time on to either of the clocks for the interuption, although would depend on the actual circumstances.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Just saw this on FIDE's BB: "If there is mate, let there be mate. That is why we play."

    AR

  9. #54
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Just saw this on FIDE's BB: "If there is mate, let there be mate. That is why we play."
    As long as the mate isn't seen to late.

    I was playing a endgame in a G30 game last night at the club. Q+R+B+2P v R+2P, Time Remaining 10 seconds v 25 minutes. The line between winning and losing is a fine one indeed.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #55
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,376
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

    Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

    You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?
    Very good question AR. I don't have much experience with this time control and it will probably show. I don't think A should get off with only a warning so if Barry's solution is adopted, B should get a time bonus. I would give B five minutes if I went that way - but I think that's letting A off a bit light anyway.

    I have just timed myself copying 23 moves. It took me a minute and a half, or roughly four seconds for each move. However I am faster at writing moves than most people would be.

    I don't think A deserves much mercy here. He has been breaking the rules over a long period, and if you add the time he's saved on he would have clearly lost on time, or else been forced to play faster.

    If it was possible to supervise the game and B's scoresheet was clearly legible, I would require A to spend the first fifteen seconds of each subsequent move copying from his opponent's scoresheet until his own is up to date. That'll learn him, he won't do that again in a hurry. If he's good enough he still should be able to win.

    This is the nearest equivalent I can think of to what I do in G90s, which is require the player to copy moves until he falls below 5 mins.

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Aaahh...your answer is better Mr Bonham.

    When I deviced the question I had in mind some rule, in the Official Rules, that players can be instructed to update their scoresheets in their own time before making another move. But last night, after I'd played through some Wijk games I read the little blue book and, for the life of me, I couldn't bloody find the rule I had in mind. Maybe I just imagined it? Maybe an older rule? See now I'm stuffed without that rule because my own answer is to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move.

    AR

  12. #57
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the 'scoresheet' prescribed for the competition.
    A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
    If a player is unable to keep score, an amount of time, decided by the arbiter, shall be deducted from his allotted time at the beginning of the game.


    The reason I was not too harsh on A was that B didn't not make a complaint until A had not recorded 23 moves. It may have been that B didn't notice - but it is also possible that he did and decided not to make a claim until his position was lost and lots of moves had passed under the bridge. I would not want to encourage B's not to make complaints about their opponent failing to score and using it as a form of gamesmanship to help win a game (under appeal) on time.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    . . . It may have been that B didn't notice - but it is also possible that he did and decided not to make a claim until his position was lost and lots of moves had passed under the bridge. I would not want to encourage B's not to make complaints about their opponent failing to score and using it as a form of gamesmanship to help win a game (under appeal) on time.
    Aha! You have grasp what I was actually aiming at. The problem for the arbiter is that there is no way for him to know this ['gamesmanship']. So I think it is fair to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move, no?
    AR

  14. #59
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    There are a number of issues that you would need to specify regarding if A has a history of "forgetting" to record moves or B has a record of using the same or similar forms of gamesmanship. But other things being equal I don't think A should be forced to lose the game on a first offense.

    I don't like Kevin's proposal as it is messy, hard to implement and may be misunderstood by the players.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #60
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,543
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    Aha! You have grasp what I was actually aiming at. The problem for the arbiter is that there is no way for him to know this ['gamesmanship']. So I think it is fair to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move, no?
    AR
    Artilce 8.4 states:
    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. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.
    Article 8.5 states:
    a. If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after one flag has fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter's or the opponent's scoresheet.

    b. If only one player is not required to keep score under Article 8.4 he must, as soon as either flag has fallen, update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard. Provided it is the player's move, he may use his opponent's scoresheet, but must return it before making a move

    c. If no complete scoresheet is available, the players must reconstruct the game on a second chessboard under the control of the arbiter or an assistant. He shall first record the actual game position, clock times and the number of moves made, if this information is available, before reconstruction takes place.
    Article 8.4, and 8.5 both state that a player who legally has not been required to record his moves but now legally must, must bnring his score sheet up to date before he makes a move on the chessboard. This clearly means if it is the players move he cannot play a move and stop the clock until his scoresheet is up to date.

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
  •