Page 5 of 27 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 398
  1. #61
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    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.
    Both players have always been required to record all their moves, time control is G90+30s/move from move 1. Just one play has forgotten to record moves around 23 moves ago.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #62
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Both players have always been required to record all their moves, time control is G90+30s/move from move 1. Just one play has forgotten to record moves around 23 moves ago.
    I know what his question was. I wasnt attempting to answer it.

    I was simply showing that if it is a players move and he was legally behind in recording his moves then he had to bring his score sheet up to date in his own time.

    It therefore seems logical that if he has to do this on his own time when he was legally behind, then surely if it is the players move and he is illegally behind he must be required to bring it up to date also on his own time.

  3. #63
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I know what his question was. I wasnt attempting to answer it.

    I was simply showing that if it is a players move and he was legally behind in recording his moves then he had to bring his score sheet up to date in his own time.

    It therefore seems logical that if he has to do this on his own time when he was legally behind, then surely if it is the players move and he is illegally behind he must be required to bring it up to date also on his own time.
    Well that explains my confusion.

    I believe what you say might be right if one player does have a complete scoresheet. If neither player has a complete scoresheet wouldn't the arbiter normal stop the clocks and reconstruct the game on a separate board to ensure both players had accurate scoresheets and while doing so the clock would be stopped?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #64
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Well that explains my confusion.

    I believe what you say might be right if one player does have a complete scoresheet. If neither player has a complete scoresheet wouldn't the arbiter normal stop the clocks and reconstruct the game on a separate board to ensure both players had accurate scoresheets and while doing so the clock would be stopped?
    Barry, Barry, Barry.
    You dont seem to be paying attention or maybe your tired.

    I previously listed all of Article 8.5 where this situation is covered by section (a).

    However my post above is covering the situation where only one player is in arrears, which is the case in AR's scenario.

  5. #65
    CC Candidate Master jase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paddington, in between Sydney city and Bondi Beach
    Posts
    485
    Arosar - my opinion on the hypothetical situation where one player has not recorded for some 23 moves:

    As stated already, the player has transgressed rule 8.1 - the player should be made to update the scoresheet before continuing.

    But this will result in the loss of the game, as this player has only 33 seconds remaining. It is uncertain whether the opponent has only just observed the fact or is employing some gamesmanship.

    I think we are agreed that if the offending player had some 4 minutes or more of time, they should be provided with the oppnent's scoresheet and instructed to update on their own time.

    One might argue that this players should be dealt with as per 12.7: "Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game."

    But as well as enforcing the laws of chess, the arbiter should ensure that tournaments are conducted in the right spirit. I do not believe therefore that an arbiter should enforce the loss of game.

    I would have the offending player immediately update their scoresheet, at another table, penalise the offending player half their time [ie I would reduce their time to 17 seconds], and explain that further transgression in this regard will result in the loss of game.

    Additionally I would add a couple of minutes to the clock of the player who has maintained their scoresheet. I might also have a quiet word to this player after the game to suggest that he brings such matters to attention a little earlier

    [sidebar: a player on the weekend offered a very generous compliment at the prizegiving, saying that he tries to always enter any tournament I run because of the goodwill and positive atmosphere of the event. I cannot verify his assertion, but I agree with the sentiment. I have a similar regard for Gary Bekker's officiating. Most tournaments in Sydney are conducted in clubs, and I have made it my custom to invite players for a drink after prizegivings ]

  6. #66
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by jase
    Arosar - my opinion on the hypothetical situation where one player has not recorded for some 23 moves:

    As stated already, the player has transgressed rule 8.1 - the player should be made to update the scoresheet before continuing.

    But this will result in the loss of the game, as this player has only 33 seconds remaining. It is uncertain whether the opponent has only just observed the fact or is employing some gamesmanship.

    I think we are agreed that if the offending player had some 4 minutes or more of time, they should be provided with the oppnent's scoresheet and instructed to update on their own time.

    One might argue that this players should be dealt with as per 12.7: "Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game."

    But as well as enforcing the laws of chess, the arbiter should ensure that tournaments are conducted in the right spirit. I do not believe therefore that an arbiter should enforce the loss of game.
    I agree with your comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by jase
    I would have the offending player immediately update their scoresheet, at another table, penalise the offending player half their time [ie I would reduce their time to 17 seconds], and explain that further transgression in this regard will result in the loss of game.
    Seems emminently reasonable to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by jase
    Additionally I would add a couple of minutes to the clock of the player who has maintained their scoresheet. I might also have a quiet word to this player after the game to suggest that he brings such matters to attention a little earlier
    As does this.

    Quote Originally Posted by jase
    [sidebar: a player on the weekend offered a very generous compliment at the prizegiving, saying that he tries to always enter any tournament I run because of the goodwill and positive atmosphere of the event. I cannot verify his assertion, but I agree with the sentiment. I have a similar regard for Gary Bekker's officiating. Most tournaments in Sydney are conducted in clubs, and I have made it my custom to invite players for a drink after prizegivings ]
    I'd agree with their observation.

  7. #67
    CC Candidate Master jase's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Paddington, in between Sydney city and Bondi Beach
    Posts
    485
    I must conceed that very few players take up my offer to adjourn to the bar - usually about 3 or 4. For the Australia Day weekender, this is quite understandable, as by the time we had put the equipment away it was nearing 11:30pm. One of the prizewinners was among them on the weekend so I didn't even have to buy the first round

    I will continue the practice in the hope of encouraging more socialising between the players [and enjoying the amber fluids...]

  8. #68
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    I don't like Kevin's proposal as it is messy, hard to implement and may be misunderstood by the players.
    Yes, you would need to commit an arbiter solely to supervising that game until the scoresheet issue is fixed, which is not always possible, and to making sure the players understand the solution. I don't think it's that hard to explain though, well, certainly simpler than Article 10.2.

    If it's not possible, something like Jase's solution would be my preference.

    One of the unfortunate differences between add-on games and flat games is that in an add-on the loss of "half your remaining time" doesn't actually cost you half your (genuinely) remaining time, it's actually only a fraction. It would be nice to be able to set the clock to reduce a player's subsequent add-ons in cases where such a penalty was considered warranted.

    I've had a case myself where I only noticed an opponent had not been scoring several moves after they stopped, but it's true that some opponents will deliberately let it go for ages before complaining, when they really could have complained after 3 or 4 moves.

  9. #69
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    It would be nice to be able to set the clock to reduce a player's subsequent add-ons in cases where such a penalty was considered warranted.
    can this be done mid game?

  10. #70
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Barry, Barry, Barry.
    You dont seem to be paying attention or maybe your tired.

    I previously listed all of Article 8.5 where this situation is covered by section (a).

    However my post above is covering the situation where only one player is in arrears, which is the case in AR's scenario.
    Yeah, I know what you were talking about. I was talking about the situation when there was a claim that a player had to update his scoresheet when the other player's scoresheet was also not up to date.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #71
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,578
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    can this be done mid game?
    Under the rules the arbiter is free to impose whatever penalty or condition he feels is warranted.

  12. #72
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    Aaahh...I'm very glad you guys were provoked by my question. I read again the '97 and 2001 rules last night and I am satisfied that I can instruct Player A to update his schoresheet, pursuant to 8.1 - and thus he would lose.

    As to jase's remarks about after-tourn drinks, this is a very good practice. It reminds me of some tourn in Germany that me mate Gerdell was telling me about. There's some blitz tourn apparently where they drink a round of beer after each round of chess. Good eh? Btw, everyone - I reckon North Sydney is an excellent venue. I notice that a Belgian Beer Cafe opened on Miller St, just 2 minutes from the club.

    Cheers boys.

    AR

  13. #73
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    As to jase's remarks about after-tourn drinks, this is a very good practice.
    At last year's Wollongong Common Man tourni, the DOP (me) shouted the field. I expect that you will come and play in our 11 round rapid weekender and claim a beer.

  14. #74
    CC Grandmaster arosar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,046
    OK . . . when is the next one?

    AR

  15. #75
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by arosar
    OK . . . when is the next one?

    AR
    Under 2000 event
    March 20/21
    Swiss , 11 rounds , 30 minutes guillotine
    Four rating divisions, Junior and Unrated.
    Entry $45 , card $35 , junior $25


    Scott Nicholson secured a $500 donation from BHP-Billiton for the junior prizes. This and the fact that we our club has a free venue, DOP, and expenses account, means that the entry fees are fully paid back in prizes.

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
  •