PDA

View Full Version : Spectator interference



ER
30-06-2009, 05:18 AM
Player A vs Player B.
Player A executes his move presses his clock and walks around the playing hall watching other games.
Player B makes his move and presses his clock.
Spectator tells Player A who, unaware of the proceedings, still walks around: "It's your move"!
Legal/Illegal?

Desmond
30-06-2009, 08:49 AM
Illegal

Rincewind
30-06-2009, 09:58 AM
Illegal

Definitely. Law 13.7 says in part


"Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game."

Informing a player that their opponent has made a move falls within the scope of this law.

It is also worth noting that arbiters are explicitly forbidden from doing this. Law 13.6 states in part


"The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move..."

antichrist
30-06-2009, 06:01 PM
Definitely. Law 13.7 says in part


"Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game."

Informing a player that their opponent has made a move falls within the scope of this law.

It is also worth noting that arbiters are explicitly forbidden from doing this. Law 13.6 states in part


"The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move..."

do you mean when I fell asleep at the board after my move and my snoring disturbed the other boards and they woke me and pointed out it was my move anyway they were illegal?

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2009, 06:05 PM
do you mean when I fell asleep at the board after my move and my snoring disturbed the other boards and they woke me and pointed out it was my move anyway they were illegal?

The arbiter should wake you up and warn you that you are annoying other players in this instance. If a sleeping player is not annoying others they should be left asleep even if they lose on time as a result.

In the case given in the opening post I would severely warn the spectator and indicate that if they interfere in a game again they will be booted out of the playing area for the rest of the round.

Rincewind
30-06-2009, 06:30 PM
do you mean when I fell asleep at the board after my move and my snoring disturbed the other boards and they woke me and pointed out it was my move anyway they were illegal?

A snoring player should be woken up and warned that they are disturbing other players. No comment as to whether they have the move or not should be made.

ElevatorEscapee
30-06-2009, 08:08 PM
He he JAK... there is a player in my local club who, for the past ten years has habitually got up when it's his opponent's turn to move, to look at the surrounding games.

He is also one of those players who tends to go into long thinks, so I will get up when it's his turn to move, so as not to disturb his in-depth concentration, and watch the other games progressing.

This worked well for a few years, as I could always tell when it was my turn to move when he arose from the board.

However, in the last couple of years, he's twigged onto this, and at the end of a long think will play his move against me, and remain, stationary, at the board... Myself, on the other side of the room will notice no change until I actually walk back and see my flag up! :lol:

(At the moment, I seem to be the only player he does this against. Initially I was a bit offended, but nowadays, I take it as a great compliment that I am the only one at the club who has caused a change in his usual behaviour.)

In such circumstances, no one else in the room should have any right to tell me that it is "my move" when this is happening. Not the arbiter, and certainly not the spectators. :mad:

The only person who has any right to tell me that it is "my move" is my direct opponent... and this sometimes actually happens! Such as when they get tired of my wandering in between moves and come up and tap me on the shoulder and let me know that it is my turn to move. :D

kjenhager
30-06-2009, 08:44 PM
He he JAK... there is a player in my local club who, for the past ten years has habitually got up when it's his opponent's turn to move, to look at the surrounding games.

He is also one of those players who tends to go into long thinks, so I will get up when it's his turn to move, so as not to disturb his in-depth concentration, and watch the other games progressing.

This worked well for a few years, as I could always tell when it was my turn to move when he arose from the board.

However, in the last couple of years, he's twigged onto this, and at the end of a long think will play his move against me, and remain, stationary, at the board... Myself, on the other side of the room will notice no change until I actually walk back and see my flag up!

(At the moment, I seem to be the only player he does this against. Initially I was a bit offended, but nowadays, I take it as a great compliment that I am the only one at the club who has caused a change in his usual behaviour.)

In such circumstances, no one else in the room should have any right to tell me that it is "my move" when this is happening. Not the arbiter, and certainly not the spectators. :mad:

The only person who has any right to tell me that it is "my move" is my direct opponent... and this sometimes actually happens! Such as when they get tired of my wandering in between moves and come up and tap me on the shoulder and let me know that it is my turn to move. :D:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Hilarious

antichrist
30-06-2009, 08:57 PM
He he JAK... there is a player in my local club who, for the past ten years has habitually got up when it's his opponent's turn to move, to look at the surrounding games.

He is also one of those players who tends to go into long thinks, so I will get up when it's his turn to move, so as not to disturb his in-depth concentration, and watch the other games progressing.

This worked well for a few years, as I could always tell when it was my turn to move when he arose from the board.

However, in the last couple of years, he's twigged onto this, and at the end of a long think will play his move against me, and remain, stationary, at the board... Myself, on the other side of the room will notice no change until I actually walk back and see my flag up! :lol:

(At the moment, I seem to be the only player he does this against. Initially I was a bit offended, but nowadays, I take it as a great compliment that I am the only one at the club who has caused a change in his usual behaviour.)

In such circumstances, no one else in the room should have any right to tell me that it is "my move" when this is happening. Not the arbiter, and certainly not the spectators. :mad:

The only person who has any right to tell me that it is "my move" is my direct opponent... and this sometimes actually happens! Such as when they get tired of my wandering in between moves and come up and tap me on the shoulder and let me know that it is my turn to move. :D

He lets you know because your move has bored him to death and he wants you to hurry and spice it up. And he wants to get the misery over quicker. You have to look beyond the surface.

WhiteElephant
30-06-2009, 11:50 PM
Actually I was going to ask a similar question. And further, what if the person who interferes is a participant in the tournament. What should the penalty be?

Rincewind
30-06-2009, 11:53 PM
Actually I was going to ask a similar question. And further, what if the person who interferes is a participant in the tournament. What should the penalty be?

I would just warn them for the first offense. But repeat offenders would need to be banned from the playing area for the duration of the round. If their game hasn't finished then I'm sure you can see the problem they have.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2009, 12:02 AM
If the person who interferes has an interest in the outcome of the game it should be treated as cheating and dealt with much more harshly.

kjenhager
01-07-2009, 12:45 AM
If the person who interferes has an interest in the outcome of the game it should be treated as cheating and dealt with much more harshly.
In an ideal world these people would be summarily tried , taken out the back, lined up, blindfolded and given a repeat rapid fire dose for approximately 30 seconds.
But , as i say , that is in an ideal world.

Rincewind
01-07-2009, 08:55 AM
If the person who interferes has an interest in the outcome of the game it should be treated as cheating and dealt with much more harshly.

If there is an element of that. But I think in that situation more likely than not it would be someone who believed they were being helpful and didn't know the rules.

antichrist
01-07-2009, 09:46 AM
what about when that guy was trying to cheat via touch move against Lloyd Fell, after doing so he gave me a big smile I gave him a smile back and a wink, to lead him on that he could get away with it. I then reneged on him and dobbed him in coz Lloyd was my mate, was my smile and wink interference?

Basil
01-07-2009, 09:50 AM
...was my smile and wink interference?
a) no - inference
b) the stuff of nightmares

CameronD
01-07-2009, 12:06 PM
i think a gentle warning is more than sufficient, the spectator is probably just ignorant.

I had a tournament blitz game once where my opponent hadnt realised that my clock had lapsed 10 moves ago, until his son informed all present.

What can you do, just concede the game, the kids just 8.

antichrist
01-07-2009, 01:21 PM
i think a gentle warning is more than sufficient, the spectator is probably just ignorant.

I had a tournament blitz game once where my opponent hadnt realised that my clock had lapsed 10 moves ago, until his son informed all present.

What can you do, just concede the game, the kids just 8.

"Accidently" spill your hot cup of tea on him as I did to one junior at the SEC about 5 years ago. That will teach to run around and trip over my foot.

bergil
01-07-2009, 02:55 PM
If the person who interferes has an interest in the outcome of the game it should be treated as cheating and dealt with much more harshly.What would the penalty be for cheating? And What else do you consider cheating?

Sally94
01-07-2009, 05:40 PM
What would happen if a spectator told Player A a winning move, causing Player A to win the game. I assume the spectator would be warned or banned from the playing hall, but what would happen to the result of the game?

Basil
01-07-2009, 05:53 PM
What would happen if a spectator told Player A a winning move, causing Player A to win the game. I assume the spectator would be warned or banned from the playing hall, but what would happen to the result of the game?
Great q, Sall. I think the result would have to stand in the absence of a confession by the winner that the move wouldn't otherwise have been played (and even then I don't know fo shizzle).

Righto arbiters - earn your chops - let's have it please.

Rincewind
01-07-2009, 06:06 PM
What would happen if a spectator told Player A a winning move, causing Player A to win the game. I assume the spectator would be warned or banned from the playing hall, but what would happen to the result of the game?

If I were arbiter, the spectator would be very harshly dealt with, such behaviour is simply unacceptable first offense or not. Banned from the event and reported to the body under whom the event was running. Assuming the player who received the advice was not implicated in anything underhanded the playing of the move and subsequent result of the game I would leave to their conscious. Given that if there was a "winning move" one would have to assume that the player was at least better at that point in the game and so even if the playing schedule permitted, I don't think the game should be replayed unless there were some exceptional circumstances.

Oepty
01-07-2009, 07:22 PM
I agree with Barry, the spectator needs to be strongly punished, unless there are obvious mitigating circumstances, like the behaviour of the players seeming to indicate the game is over. I have seen a spectator attempt to start analysising the position with the players in such a circumstance.
If this spectator was a player in the tournament and somehow benefited from player A winning a lengthy ban from tournament chess could be merited. It is as much cheating as them getting asistance in their own game.

As far as the result of the game goes, it is quite possible that no result is really fair. If player A was winning easily that would ease the situation somewhat I guess, but if the move made a huge difference in a fairly equal game or it was a tatic in an otherwise much worse position the game has been effectively ruined.

Depending on the situation one solution might be to allow Player B to take back their last move so that the game can continue down a different path, certainly not ideal though and it might favour player B too much.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2009, 07:39 PM
What would the penalty be for cheating? And What else do you consider cheating?

I'd consider it similar to trying to distract another player who one is competing with for a prize.

Actually it could be that a third party waking up a player might be doing so more innocently (not out of desire to influence the outcome but out of a view that it is not fair that a player lose on time by being asleep).

But say X and Y are in the running for the tournament victory and Y is playing Z, who falls asleep at the board. If I was satisfied that X had deliberately woken up Z to try to increase the chance of Z beating Y then I would probably do something like dock a point from X's score.


What would happen if a spectator told Player A a winning move, causing Player A to win the game. I assume the spectator would be warned or banned from the playing hall, but what would happen to the result of the game?

In an interschool once I ruled both the person giving the advice and the recipient to have lost their game in that round in this sort of case. I think it's more common now to just penalise the school a game point or something like that - in serious cases.

The usual principle (when the players involved are not in teams but are acting as individuals) is that the player who receives the advice shouldn't suffer (as they may have played that move anyway) but the person giving the advice should be harshly punished, and the greater the impact of the advice, the harsher the punishment.

I like Rincewind's idea to give the player who received the advice the option to decide that they won't play the advised move.

Or suppose the player has only one winning move and everything else loses, and a spectator advises the winning move. In this case, if the player is really not sure they would have seen the move or not, then "draw agreed" would be a very fair outcome.

Controlling advice situations in junior chess is very difficult.

Denis_Jessop
01-07-2009, 09:31 PM
What would happen if a spectator told Player A a winning move, causing Player A to win the game. I assume the spectator would be warned or banned from the playing hall, but what would happen to the result of the game?


If it could be established to the arbiter's satisfaction, the player could be dealt with for an infringement of Art. 12.2 a. - using a "source of information".

DJ

Denis_Jessop
01-07-2009, 09:45 PM
What would the penalty be for cheating? And What else do you consider cheating?

Though I was not the recipient of this query, I thought I'd put some views on record.

First "cheating" is not specifically mentioned in the Laws of Chess.

Nevertheless, Arts 12.1 and 12.2 will almost certainly cover it.

Secondly, it is virtually impossible to say what amounts to cheating or what the penalty should be except in very general terms. Each case must be considered in light of its particular circumstances. An act may be cheating in some circumstances but not others and the penalty likewise may vary according to the facts of the case even where the basic action was the same.

Thirdly, regarding spectators, the arbiter's only explicit power is to expel them from the event - see Art.13.7 a. By implication he could warn them but the penalties in Art. 13.4 are clearly not meant to apply to spectators. One would assume that, if the spectator was also a participant in the event, the arbiter could expel the spectator from the event but that doesn't seem to be covered explicitly in the Laws.

DJ

Rincewind
01-07-2009, 10:11 PM
If it could be established to the arbiter's satisfaction, the player could be dealt with for an infringement of Art. 12.2 a. - using a "source of information".

I think if the player sought the advise of the spectator then it would be using a source of information. However, if a spectator merely blurted out the winning move and the player could not help but hear it they did not use a source of information but rather the information was thrust upon them. Therefore how could the arbiter establish that if the move played is the same as the move blurted that the player used the source of information or had already decided on this this move independently?

Garvinator
01-07-2009, 10:28 PM
For all this, isn't this one of those situations where the preface is probably the best solution:


PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions.
Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws.
The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special
factors.

Garvinator
01-07-2009, 10:30 PM
With the idea of docking points, what would you recommend for players who are in different divisions ie the result of the player does not directly affect the advice giver?

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2009, 10:47 PM
With the idea of docking points, what would you recommend for players who are in different divisions ie the result of the player does not directly affect the advice giver?

In that case there is no need to dock points but you can expel the advice giver from the playing area as Rincewind suggested (with the possible by-product that they may be unable to play their own game and may lose it on time or by forfeit as a result.)

In extreme cases, disciplinary processes after the tournament are also an option.

antichrist
02-07-2009, 12:07 AM
What about when Ivanchuk's uncle in the middle of a game baptised me with the chess pieces and my mate was able to set the board up again and we played on, was that interference

WhiteElephant
02-07-2009, 01:14 AM
In an interschool once I ruled both the person giving the advice and the recipient to have lost their game in that round in this sort of case. I think it's more common now to just penalise the school a game point or something like that - in serious cases.

Controlling advice situations in junior chess is very difficult.

Yeah at Interschools you have to think on your feet. I had a case last week where a spectator reminded a player from his school (board 1 game) to press the clock. His opponent complained. After listening to all parties, I penalised the player who was reminded to press his clock by 2 minutes and warned his team mates that another infraction would be dealt with very harshly. This reduced his time from 6 to 4 mins and he ended up winning the game.

An innocuous-seeming decision and yet after the game BOTH players came over and complained - the winner that I was too harsh and the loser that he should have been awarded a full point!

Kevin Bonham
02-07-2009, 01:24 AM
As an arbiter I sometimes remind very inexperienced players to press their clocks so that they get the hang of it.

I agree with your decision. I can see that someone might argue 2 mins was too harsh but anyone expecting to win the game just because their opponent was told their clock was ticking is a bit hopeful!

WhiteElephant
02-07-2009, 01:27 AM
The guy I penalised had a winning position. I felt I had to do something because the other guy was complaining pretty loudly :)

ER
24-07-2009, 01:46 AM
Are players allowed to take the law in their hands??? I mean in case of juniors or even adults (who sometimes are worse) being noisy, what does the player do? Tells them to shut up him/herself or informs the arbiter?
Not that I am going to dob him in (for now that is :P) but I know a player who takes no prisoners and tells off (and in no uncertain terms) everyone who doesn't behave! (And does a good job out of it too!) ;)

Kevin Bonham
24-07-2009, 02:11 AM
A player needs to be careful that if they're telling a noisy spectator to shut up, they don't become a noise problem themselves by doing so too loudly.

ER
24-07-2009, 04:51 PM
A player needs to be careful that if they're telling a noisy spectator to shut up, they don't become a noise problem themselves by doing so too loudly.
Michael Baron did! :P but everyone else shut up after his very assertive "Quiet Please"! Call! :)

antichrist
08-08-2009, 11:46 AM
Michael Baron did! :P but everyone else shut up after his very assertive "Quiet Please"! Call! :)

Wasn't Firegoat and his sparring partner at that comp?

ER
14-08-2009, 08:06 AM
No, that was at the MCC very recently, but coming to think of it fg7 indeed ejected an annoyingly noisy person from the MCC some years ago!

FM_Bill
06-07-2010, 08:08 PM
Michael Baron did! but everyone else shut up after his very assertive "Quiet Please"! Call!

Ive heard him do that do that quite a lot, oddly always on his opponents time, and way louder than the person making the noise.

To his credit I think his behaviour has improved a bit lately.

Keong Ang
09-10-2011, 08:01 PM
Was asked for my opinion about a situation in a recent junior comp with rapid time control.

PlayerA's turn to move.
PlayerB could deliver checkmate in a move.
PlayerA saw the mate threat and knows only way to avoid is to keep checking PlayerB. However playerA does not have perpetual check and would eventually run out of checks.
Both players could checkmate through "any series of legal moves".

Game goes like this, playerA keeps playing moves that puts playerB in check, playerB keeps playing moves that keeps getting out of check.
If playerA cannot check playerB, playerB would play the checkmate move on playerA.

Flag falls on playerB's clock and clock freezes.
Spectator points at the clock, and playerA calls flag fall.

playerA claims win on time, playerB claims interference.

What should the arbiter do?

My opinion was that playerB should lose on time and playerA should get the full point. The spectator should be expelled.
Result is based on article6.9 and because playerA did validly claim flag fall under article6.8.
Spectator should be expelled based on article13.7.a

Is my opinion correct?

Obviously this was not the tournament arbiter's decision.
I'm wondering what pertinent bits of information was missing from the situation described above to cause the arbiter to award a draw as the result instead.
i.e. what scenario would make a draw a legitimate result?

ER
09-10-2011, 08:26 PM
Is my opinion correct?

C'mon man show some initiative! You either are a FIDE arbiter or not! Instead of asking if your opinion is correct, state what you would have done in the particular case. We are not interested in arbiters' opinions we are interested in their decisions!

Kevin Bonham
09-10-2011, 09:24 PM
Instead of asking if your opinion is correct, state what you would have done in the particular case.

As far as I can tell he did both. He said:


My opinion was that playerB should lose on time and playerA should get the full point. The spectator should be expelled.

As for that view, I would like to know if player A had their eye on the clock anyway. If player A was watching the clock and the spectator was simply faster than I agree with the above.

If on the other hand A had no idea and may very well have been mated before spotting the flagfall, then at weak or inexperienced junior level at least, I would strongly encourage the players to agree that the game should be drawn. It is not sporting for A to win on time because a spectator pointed out a flagfall when A was in a lost position.

The arbiter can impose a range of solutions (including the literal reading as per your post) since the arbiter can declare the situation to be not precisely regulated. There is nothing in the Laws stating what must be done when a player innocently receives advice.

Keong Ang
10-10-2011, 05:34 AM
As far as I can tell he did both. He said:

Should have emphasised that I was not the arbiter and was not even present at the tournament. Hence my opinion rather than decision. My opinion was sought when the situation was described.

The arbiter at the tournament declared a draw.

I'm posting here to see if there were any bits of information that could have been left out that would provide sufficient cause for such a decision. I had found the decision puzzling.


As for that view, I would like to know if player A had their eye on the clock anyway. If player A was watching the clock and the spectator was simply faster than I agree with the above.

If on the other hand A had no idea and may very well have been mated before spotting the flagfall, then at weak or inexperienced junior level at least, I would strongly encourage the players to agree that the game should be drawn. It is not sporting for A to win on time because a spectator pointed out a flagfall when A was in a lost position.

The arbiter can impose a range of solutions (including the literal reading as per your post) since the arbiter can declare the situation to be not precisely regulated. There is nothing in the Laws stating what must be done when a player innocently receives advice.

Both players are strong and have a reputation of being clock watchers and strict followers (and imposers) of the Laws.
However what actually happened at flagfall is unknown. I am assuming the arbiter was also working on the version of events that both players were saying.

Knowing both players, I'd guess that flagfall would have been spotted before checkmate was delivered. However, the arbiter probably does not know these players that well. I suspect there must be other circumstances that everyone present prefers not to reveal. :hmm:

This sort of spectator interference situations tends to occur quite regularly. What the arbiter needs to do in cases of unsolicited advice to players is always tricky.

My guess as to what happened was that playerA was in a lost position but saw that playerB was in severe time trouble and played on in the hope of winning by the clock. The moves were made quickly by both players as playerB needed to beat the clock and playerA wanted to minimise playerB's thinking time. After some exciting moves, playerB's flag fell and a spectator probably reacted in a way that would have alerted everybody present about flagfall. Then the arbiter was called and everyone who are not interested parties disappeared.

The disappearance of all neutral witnesses seem to be a common malaise afflicting this arbiter!! :lol:

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2011, 11:33 AM
Both players are strong and have a reputation of being clock watchers and strict followers (and imposers) of the Laws.

In that case it is highly likely that flagfall would have been spotted so I agree with your opinion. It should be possible for the arbiter to determine for themselves that they are dealing with players who would not overlook a flagfall.


I suspect there must be other circumstances that everyone present prefers not to reveal.

Not necessarily. Some arbiters, especially inexperienced ones, just like to resolve any contentious situations by calling it a draw. Sometimes such an approach is within the arbiter's discretion and sometimes it goes outside it.


After some exciting moves, playerB's flag fell and a spectator probably reacted in a way that would have alerted everybody present about flagfall.

An occupational hazard is that sometimes the excited audience can't help reacting in that manner. That is not quite the same as a player deliberately pointing it out.

Denis_Jessop
10-10-2011, 12:36 PM
<snip>



An occupational hazard is that sometimes the excited audience can't help reacting in that manner. That is not quite the same as a player deliberately pointing it out.

I'm not sure that I agree with this even in a club game. Isn't this an example of why the rules about spectator interference are in the Laws? My view is that, if spectators can't contain themselves, they should go away or the arbiter should remove them, at least to a distance from which they can have no influence on the game.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
10-10-2011, 05:54 PM
My view is that, if spectators can't contain themselves, they should go away or the arbiter should remove them, at least to a distance from which they can have no influence on the game.

Ideally I agree, however in large junior tournaments this involves practically banning spectators since a fairly high proportion of under-10s cannot control themselves.

Denis_Jessop
10-10-2011, 06:56 PM
Ideally I agree, however in large junior tournaments this involves practically banning spectators since a fairly high proportion of under-10s cannot control themselves.

Yes; I thought of the juniors you mention after I posted. I have some experience of largish primary school junior events. They (the juniors) are not easily controllable, if at all. Moreover if a situation involving them arises there is not a good chance of getting a comprehensible account of what happened unless you witnessed it too. In the events I've done, many of the juniors (primary school age) didn't even know some of the basic rules such as castling let alone things like this.

DJ

SHump
17-10-2011, 11:41 AM
At a recent event I was arbiting (game time was G15/0), the two players were the opposite re watching their clocks - ie they didn't look at them at all! Some of the player/spectators were watching and I did indicate (silently) for them to not say anything before or after one flag had fallen. The players kept playing on for another 10 moves or so, but then I intervened before one of the players was going to be checkmated and before the second flag fall, to let them know the flag had fallen.

I guess I am just putting this tale across as a counter-example of how players view their clocks. And yes it was a 'Rookies' event so that also can be some explanation for it.

Keong Ang
17-10-2011, 12:55 PM
At a recent event I was arbiting (game time was G15/0), the two players were the opposite re watching their clocks - ie they didn't look at them at all! Some of the player/spectators were watching and I did indicate (silently) for them to not say anything before or after one flag had fallen. The players kept playing on for another 10 moves or so, but then I intervened before one of the players was going to be checkmated and before the second flag fall, to let them know the flag had fallen.

I guess I am just putting this tale across as a counter-example of how players view their clocks. And yes it was a 'Rookies' event so that also can be some explanation for it.

These 'Rookies' events are the best training ground for arbiters...!! :lol:

From your description, as the arbiter, you've illegally interfered in the game and maybe caused a wrong result. I'm assuming that the tournament, according to the regulations, was an inadequately supervised rapid.

ArticleA.4.d.1.
The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect. The arbiter shall refrain from signalling a flag fall, but he may do so if both flags have fallen.

ArticleA.4.d.2.
To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful, the claimant’s flag must remain up and his opponent’s flag down after the clocks have been stopped.

ArticleA.4.d.3.
If both flags have fallen as described in (1) and (2), the arbiter shall declare the game drawn.

If you had not intervened until both flags fell, the result could be a draw according to ArticleA.4.d.3.

You did not reveal which player's flag fell, which player was going to be checkmated and what was the actual result. So there are a number of possible "legally" correct outcomes and even more numerous wrong ones.
:hmm:

Keong Ang
17-10-2011, 02:17 PM
Any ideal remedies for this situation?
The people involved should know who they are, but this is not a name/shame exercise. ;)

PlayerA and PlayerB had a dispute over adjusting/touch take.
PlayerA wants playerB to take his piece. PlayerB says he was adjusting and said "adjust", only playerA did not hear it. No witnesses here. One player's word over the other situation.

PlayerA started to loudly lecture playerB about touch-take rules. PlayerA was audible to everyone in whole playing area.

Arbiter told both players to step outside the playing area. PlayerB complied but playerA remained seated and continued to loudly complain etc.

By this time nobody could concentrate on their games. Arbiter told playerA that refusal to step outside would result in default loss. PlayerA still refused to comply instead insisting that playerB return to the board and resume play.

Eventually playerB returned and the game resumed. Arbiter decision was not necessary in the end because there were no legal moves that playerB could make to take playerA's piece (that was touched) anyway!!

The trouble is, all this commotion distracted playerC (and probably a few other players) that resulted in a blundered exchange order with playerD. PlayerC ended up N and two pawns down. Eventually game was lost by playerC.

My view is that a disturbance between playerA and playerB (say on board1) caused by playerA had resulted in playerC losing his game against playerD (say on board2).
The arbiter could penalise playerA, but there does not seem to be any ideal remedy for playerC and playerD.

William AS
17-10-2011, 03:08 PM
Any ideal remedies for this situation?
The people involved should know who they are, but this is not a name/shame exercise. ;)

PlayerA and PlayerB had a dispute over adjusting/touch take.
PlayerA wants playerB to take his piece. PlayerB says he was adjusting and said "adjust", only playerA did not hear it. No witnesses here. One player's word over the other situation.

PlayerA started to loudly lecture playerB about touch-take rules. PlayerA was audible to everyone in whole playing area.

Arbiter told both players to step outside the playing area. PlayerB complied but playerA remained seated and continued to loudly complain etc.

By this time nobody could concentrate on their games. Arbiter told playerA that refusal to step outside would result in default loss. PlayerA still refused to comply instead insisting that playerB return to the board and resume play.

Eventually playerB returned and the game resumed. Arbiter decision was not necessary in the end because there were no legal moves that playerB could make to take playerA's piece (that was touched) anyway!!

The trouble is, all this commotion distracted playerC (and probably a few other players) that resulted in a blundered exchange order with playerD. PlayerC ended up N and two pawns down. Eventually game was lost by playerC.

My view is that a disturbance between playerA and playerB (say on board1) caused by playerA had resulted in playerC losing his game against playerD (say on board2).
The arbiter could penalise playerA, but there does not seem to be any ideal remedy for playerC and playerD.

Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done about the effects to the other players in the tournament.

The behavior of player A in disobeying a direct instruction by the arbiter is a very serious offence which should be dealt with immediately by the arbiter quietly warning them they will be forfeited if they continue their disruption. Any continued disruption should result in an immediate forfeit and eviction from the playing hall for the rest of the round.