Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 52
  1. #1
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127

    LIbby asks a chess question!

    We played the ACT Women & Girls' Championship this weekend.

    Underqualified DOP was moi.

    Player A (who shall remain nameless but those who know will know) has about 42 mins on the clock - player B has 9 seconds.

    Time control is 60mins plus 10secs from move one.

    Player A is down material but King is scuttling around & hiding with some success. Player A plays a Knight move and Player B is in check.

    Player B makes an illegal move, presses the clock, and goes to 19 secs.

    Player A points out the illegal move and presses the clock.

    Player B makes a legal move, presses the clock and now has about 29 seconds on the clock.

    In other words, under intense time pressure, Player B has now gained 10seconds more as a consequence of the illegal move.

    What should have happened?

    What should Player A have done when she noticed the illegal move? Was it more appropriate that she pause the clock rather than press it and return it to player B?

    As parent of Player A, the DOP let things go and dealt (nicely) with unhappy Player A after the game. Thankfully we had moved on within 5 minutes and it's no big deal. I just didn't know what to do and didn't want to interfere as a parent of one of the players without knowing exactly what should have occurred. As you might imagine, everything was happening pretty rapidly by this stage anyway.

    You can all give me the lecture on the benefits of fantastically qualified and well-paid arbiters later I promise!

  2. #2
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    I think usual procedure would have been for the player A to stop the clock and summon the arbiter. Player A should have gotten 2 minutes of extra time and player B's clock should have been restarted without increment.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #3
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I think usual procedure would have been for the player A to stop the clock and summon the arbiter. Player A should have gotten 2 minutes of extra time and player B's clock should have been restarted without increment.
    I'm sure Player A needed the extra 2 mins

    Yes, that was my take on the situation. I couldn't see how Player B should "gain" from an illegal move. Would be a reasonable tactical ploy otherwise. It all got quite messy and I think Player A didn't consider the ramifications of pressing the clock until she had done it.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    You seem to have handled the situation just fine. This is one of the situations where there just is no perfect solution.

    Technically, player A should have stopped the clocks, called the arbiter over, the arbiter should have reset B's clock to the 9 seconds (if you think it was done deliberately, you could opt to reduce B's time further as a penalty, or add some time to A's clock), and restart the game with B to move before the illegal move. Of course, this entire procedure would likely give B a much bigger advantage in terms of thinking time than the 10 seconds she gained (indeed, if she had done this intentionally to gain time, she could have made A call the arbiter to settle the dispute...). Thus, it was A's best interest the way it happened.

    Only if B had a history of "cheating attempts" would I consider more severe penalties

  5. #5
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    Only if B had a history of "cheating attempts" would I consider more severe penalties
    Absolutely no question of that.

    Just wanting to know for my own benefit and so I can tell Kayleigh the correct way to manage this if it ever happens again.

    I think she sensed a "time swindle" in the offing and had it whisked away.

    BTW - ACT Women & Girls was contested by 21 players and was won by Shannon Oliver ahead of Miona Ikeda & Tamzin Oliver.

    Our Secondary Girls Championship (held midweek) attracted 43 players.

    Libby

  6. #6
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Libby
    BTW - ACT Women & Girls was contested by 21 players and was won by Shannon Oliver ahead of Miona Ikeda & Tamzin Oliver.
    Just out of curiosity, how many of those 21 were adults?

    Anyway, congratulations on your girl's program, chess needs this alot!

  7. #7
    Account Suspended Libby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    Just out of curiosity, how many of those 21 were adults?

    Anyway, congratulations on your girl's program, chess needs this alot!
    2 & a bit. Jenni Oliver & Jennie Nicholson made some suggestion about us instituting a "seniors" category. Shannon Oliver is still a junior in the sense that ACTJCL accepts junior members to age 20.

    We had over 250 girls in our Girls' Primary last term. Our ACT reps for Aus Schools will be Curtin Primary with the same 4 girls backing up from last year (won our event 28/28 and a long time control playoff against second place 8-0).

    Just needed to brag a little

    PS Did radio interviews with the main FM stations for the Girls' Primary playoffs and had The Canberra Times at our Girls' Secondary.

    Persistance is the biggest factor with the media. Sometimes we go for months without a sniff and then other times they're all over us.
    Last edited by Libby; 15-05-2005 at 08:41 PM.

  8. #8
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    Hello Libby,

    In the situation you give, player A's probably gained the biggest advantage by taking the actions she did ie not giving player B the extra time to think which would occur by calling over the arbiter.

    How to word this- ummm- In 60/10, if a player makes three illegal moves in one game, they lose the game. Therefore, if player B was to make another illegal move later on, she would have made two illegal moves and would be close to forfeiting the game.
    Now, because Player A had not called over the arbiter for the first illegal move, Player B would still have three illegal moves in hand (so to speak). Therefore, if Player A called over the arbiter after the second illegal move, all the arbiter could say is that it is the the first illegal move.

    Geez that is a bad explaination, but i hope you understand

  9. #9
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    The situation is covered by Article 7.4 of the rules of chess.
    It is irrelevant that Player A started Player B's clock after the illegal move and did not claim. As soon as the illegal move is brought to the attention of the arbiter, the arbiter should proceed in accordance with Article 7.4. In fact Article 7.4 does not require the player to make the claim.

  10. #10
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    Hello Libby,

    In the situation you give, player A's probably gained the biggest advantage by taking the actions she did ie not giving player B the extra time to think which would occur by calling over the arbiter.

    How to word this- ummm- In 60/10, if a player makes three illegal moves in one game, they lose the game. Therefore, if player B was to make another illegal move later on, she would have made two illegal moves and would be close to forfeiting the game.
    Now, because Player A had not called over the arbiter for the first illegal move, Player B would still have three illegal moves in hand (so to speak). Therefore, if Player A called over the arbiter after the second illegal move, all the arbiter could say is that it is the the first illegal move.

    Geez that is a bad explaination, but i hope you understand
    Not only is it a bad explanation it is also incorrect.
    Article 7.4 does not require the player to claim. As soon as the arbiter becomes aware of the the situation, the arbiter must carry out the actions described in Article 7.4.

  11. #11
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    In fact in this case, article 7.4(a) does not even require an arbiter's intervention, as the situation before the illegal move had already been restored by the players and the arbiter has used her judgement about times on the clock (i.e not to change anything). Article 7.4(b) is somewhat more difficult, as applying it as written actually disadvantages the player it is supposed to help. Probably a case of using sound judgement as per the preface.

  12. #12
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    In fact in this case, article 7.4(a) does not even require an arbiter's intervention, as the situation before the illegal move had already been restored by the players and the arbiter has used her judgement about times on the clock (i.e not to change anything).
    That is not accurate. Irrespective of the actions of the players the arbiter should step in, correct the position so that it is setup immediately prior to the illegal move and set the clocks if possible to the times they were showing prior to the illegal move. In Libby's case player B' clock should therefore show 19secs and players A's adjusted also to remove 10secs due to player A pressing their clock but not making a move.
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    Article 7.4(b) is somewhat more difficult, as applying it as written actually disadvantages the player it is supposed to help.
    How so. Article 7.4b advantages the player who did not make the illegal move. The arbiter must give the opponent of the player who made the illegal move 2mins extra. In Libby's case player A who will now have 2mins plus whatever seconds were on their clock prior to player B's illegal move. At this point B's will still show 19secs.
    The arbiter would then start player B's clock and player B can make a legal move to replace the illegal move.
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    Probably a case of using sound judgement as per the preface.
    I do not believe the preface is relevant in this circumstance Article 7.4b is quite explicit.

  13. #13
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    That is not accurate. Irrespective of the actions of the players the arbiter should step in, correct the position so that it is setup immediately prior to the illegal move and set the clocks if possible to the times they were showing prior to the illegal move. In Libby's case player B' clock should therefore show 19secs and players A's adjusted also to remove 10secs due to player A pressing their clock but not making a move.
    The position prior to the move had already been reinstated. With regard to time the relevant article 6.14 explicitly asks for a judgment call by the arbiter, which has been made.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    How so. Article 7.4b advantages the player who did not make the illegal move. The arbiter must give the opponent of the player who made the illegal move 2mins extra. In Libby's case player A who will now have 2mins plus whatever seconds were on their clock prior to player B's illegal move. At this point B's will still show 19secs.
    The arbiter would then start player B's clock and player B can make a legal move to replace the illegal move.
    Going into the situation, A had 42 mins on her clock to B's 9 secs. The extra 2 mins would not have been any tangible advantage for A, but the delay the resetting of clocks would cause would likely be more than the total time remaining for B, thus a major and possibly decisive gain of thinking time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I do not believe the preface is relevant in this circumstance Article 7.4b is quite explicit.
    As I have pointed out, it's a difficult case. The rule, when taken literally does not do what it's supposed to do (i.e. the intended advantage for A in reality becomes an advantage for B), therefore it could be considered a case of "a too detailed ruling might prevent...", as the rules do not cover the possibility that the mere act of resetting the clock buys a player a relevant amount of time.

  14. #14
    Illuminati Bill Gletsos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17,058
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    The position prior to the move had already been reinstated.
    Irrelevant. The arbiter should have ensured that Article 7.4 was followed. This includes adjusting the clocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    With regard to time the relevant article 6.14 explicitly asks for a judgment call by the arbiter, which has been made.
    I disagree. If the arbiter knew what the times were prior to the illegal move (and apparently she did) then best judgement would mean thats what the clocks should have been set to.
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    Going into the situation, A had 42 mins on her clock to B's 9 secs. The extra 2 mins would not have been any tangible advantage for A, but the delay the resetting of clocks would cause would likely be more than the total time remaining for B, thus a major and possibly decisive gain of thinking time.
    Possibly but unless you could somehow prove that B deliberately made the illegal move to gain such an advantage then the rules should be followed. As I said Article 7.4b requires the arbiter to apply the 2 minutes. It is not discretionary.
    Quote Originally Posted by jay_vee
    As I have pointed out, it's a difficult case. The rule, when taken literally does not do what it's supposed to do (i.e. the intended advantage for A in reality becomes an advantage for B), therefore it could be considered a case of "a too detailed ruling might prevent...", as the rules do not cover the possibility that the mere act of resetting the clock buys a player a relevant amount of time.
    The preface does not apply. Article 7.4b is expicit. The arbiter must award the two minutes.

  15. #15
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    I disagree. If the arbiter knew what the times were prior to the illegal move (and apparently she did) then best judgement would mean thats what the clocks should have been set to.
    That may well be what your judgement call would have been, but the rules ask the arbiter to make that call. And she did. If best judgement would be to reinstate the times as they were, the article could ask for that. But instead a judgement call is asked for, and such a call needs to take other factors into account, such as the disturbance or delay a clock reset would cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gletsos
    Possibly but unless you could somehow prove that B deliberately made the illegal move to gain such an advantage then the rules should be followed. As I said Article 7.4b requires the arbiter to apply the 2 minutes. It is not discretionary.
    The preface does not apply. Article 7.4b is expicit. The arbiter must award the two minutes.
    As I have said, a difficult case. I could argue that the arbiter in making her judgement call above has actually taken that into account as well, and in order to avoid the undesired interruption decided to reset the clocks in such a way that the extra 2 mins would be canceled out, but I let the case rest. Maybe you would like to send a mail to Geurt Gijssen?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Stinginess of Chess Players
    By Paul S in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 24-04-2008, 09:48 PM
  2. How to increase chess participation.
    By ursogr8 in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 22-04-2005, 05:02 PM
  3. Junior performance and training
    By auriga in forum General Chess Chat
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 20-12-2004, 09:34 PM
  4. Mt Buller - Chess World letter to ACF
    By ChessGuru in forum Mt Buller Chess
    Replies: 210
    Last Post: 17-07-2004, 11:58 AM
  5. Australian chess wheel reinvented again!
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 20-02-2004, 04:01 PM

Posting Permissions

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