PDA

View Full Version : Fracas solved.



PHAT
18-08-2004, 07:05 PM
Barry, what was that fracas with you and Martin last night? Anything worth debating here?

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 07:06 PM
Barry, what was that fracas with you and Martin last night? Anything worth debating here?

I was going to post something sometime but wasn't going to name names. ;)

I'll post something after the kids are go to bed.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 07:45 PM
OK, White and Black were playing a game. The time controls were 40 moves in 90 minutes then 30 minutes for the remaining moves. The times on the clock were White < 10s, Black ~ 1m 30s. Both players had recorded moves up to around move 35, although White's scoresheet had numerous corrections in the 30's.

With around 5s left on the clock, White (with the move) stopped the clock and asked the arbiter to determine if the zeitnot had been crossed. Black replied that only two moves had been played since he had stopped recording and (meaning it was currently White's 38th move) and therefore both players had three more move needed to be played. White questioned this but Black was positive as his scoresheet is quite clear and as far as he knew without error up to the 35th move.

White wished the game to be replayed on a separate board to exactly determine the current move number but Black protested that this was unfair given the present time situation. Black asked that at least 3 more moves should be played as soon as possible and then the clock should be stopped and the scoresheets brought up-to-date.

After a minute or two of discussion this what was done except around 6 moves were played instead of 3. While the position was being recreated the DOP said that the position should only be reconstructed up to move 40, any remaining moves should be annulled and play continue from Whites move 41. Even though the players had actually played up to move 42 or 43 in the time scramble this was agreed. This did not sound right to me but as my position was superior, I reluctently agreed.

So the game was contructed to move 40, played continued with White having 30 minutes, Black having 31 minutes. The game concluded 4 moves later when White resigned a clearly lost position.

Here is the game for those who might be interested.


1.e4 c5 2.f4 Nc6 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bb5 a6 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.O-O g6 8.d4
cxd4 9.Nxd4 c5 10.Nf3 Bg7 11.Qd3 O-O 12.h3 a5 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Qxd5 Be6 15.
Qd3 Qb6 16.Kh1 Qb4
17.Qe3 Qc4 18.Rf2 Rab8 19.c3 Rb7 20.Nd2 Qa6 21.Nf1 Rfb8 22.Ng3 a4 23.Kh2
Qa5 24.f5 Bc4 25.Rf4 Bh6 26.Qf3 Bxf4 27.Qxf4 Qd8 28.e5 Bd5 29.fxg6 hxg6
30.exd6 Qxd6 31.Qxa4 Qf6 32.Bf4 Rxb2 33.Rg1 Ra8 34.Qd7 Qxf4
35.Qxd5 Raxa2 36.Rf1 Rxg2+
37.Qxg2 Rxg2+ 38.Kxg2 Qd2+ 39.Kg1 Qxc3 40.Kg2 c4 41.Rf3 Qb2+ 42.Rf2 c3 43.
Ne2 c2 44.Rf1 c1=Q 0-1

PHAT
18-08-2004, 08:26 PM
While the position was being recreated the DOP said that the position should only be reconstructed up to move 40, any remaining moves should be annulled and play continue from Whites move 41. Even though the players had actually played up to move 42 or 43 in the time scramble this was agreed. This did not sound right to me but as my position was superior, I reluctently agreed.

I do not agree that the moves should have been annulled. You were both naughty in the difficult position of not knowing how many moves needed to be played. The low quality time scramble moves are the price one pays for getting into time trouble.

If all moves past #40 were to be annulled, it should have been stated before the clock was restarted, not during reconstruction.

I wonder how you would have felt if during the reconstruction, you had been found to be in a crap position at move #40 but white's #41 timescramble move was a blunder.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 08:33 PM
I do not agree that the moves should have been annulled. You were both naughty in the difficult position of not knowing how many moves needed to be played. The low quality time scramble moves are the price one pays for getting into time trouble.

If all moves past #40 were to be annulled, it should have been stated before the clock was restarted, not during reconstruction.

I wonder how you would have felt if during the reconstruction, you had been found to be in a crap position at move #40 but white's #41 timescramble move was a blunder.

Neither of us were naughty, per se, as we were both in a sub-5 minute situation and so recording the moves was not mandatory. Although I too believe the moves should have been left to stand. Had a blunder in the first move 41-43 range had changed the course of the game it would have been controversial. As it was however, it made little difference.

The final position when the clocks were stopped the second time for the reconstruction was very similar to the position after Black's 42 move except the Q was on c1 and the White K was on f3. However, due to the annulment, that exact position did not occur in the in the official record of the game.

shaun
18-08-2004, 08:40 PM
The arbiter should have refused the White request and immeadiatley restarted the clock. Only when a flag falls can a player request information concerning the number of moves. It appears all subsequent problems flowed from this error.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 08:46 PM
The arbiter should have refused the White request and immeadiatley restarted the clock. Only when a flag falls can a player request information concerning the number of moves. It appears all subsequent problems flowed from this error.

That's actually why 42-43 moves were completed before the reconstruction began. We basically played until White's flag fell. Although once I was sure we were past 40 moves I would have no objection to the clocks being stopped for the purposes of bringing the scoresheet up to date when neither player has a complete scoresheet and so a reconstruction is required (as was the case in this game).

Garvinator
18-08-2004, 08:49 PM
Copy of the relevant rule.

8.4

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.
8.5

1.

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.
2.

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
3.

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.

8.6

If the scoresheets cannot be brought up to date showing that a player has overstepped the allotted time, the next move made shall be considered as the first of the following time period, unless there is evidence that more moves have been made.

Barry, i am surprised that you allowed the moves to be annulled, when you know the rules so well on here :hmm:

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 09:10 PM
Barry, i am surprised that you allowed the moves to be annulled, when you know the rules so well on here :hmm:

As I said, it may no difference in this particular case. I had just been playing for 3 hours, it was 11 o'clock and I had still up to one hour to play to go.

In different circumstances I may have made more of an issue of it. Last night, I let it slide and concentrated on getting the point recorded on the results sheet first.

Garvinator
18-08-2004, 09:18 PM
As I said, it may no difference in this particular case. I had just been playing for 3 hours, it was 11 o'clock and I had still up to one hour to play to go.
i dont understand why local clubs start so late? My club starts at 8pm for most events. we start at 7:30pm for our club championships (90/30). I think starting normal time control chess events at 8pm is ridiculous. I wish my club started at 7pm.

Can someone answer this without saying, oh its cause ppl finish work at about 5pm and need time to get to chess.

Ian Rout
18-08-2004, 10:46 PM
The arbiter should have refused the White request and immeadiatley restarted the clock. Only when a flag falls can a player request information concerning the number of moves. It appears all subsequent problems flowed from this error.
This sounds somewhat generous, shouldn't some additional penalty be imposed on White for stopping the clocks without valid reason?

As it turned out Black won the game anyway, but had that not happened Black would be entitled to be highly aggrieved at White saving the game by such blatantly illegal behaviour. I'll avoid the word "cheating" as White may have genuinely not known the rules.

ursogr8
19-08-2004, 08:36 AM
i dont understand why local clubs start so late? My club starts at 8pm for most events. we start at 7:30pm for our club championships (90/30). I think starting normal time control chess events at 8pm is ridiculous. I wish my club started at 7pm.

Can someone answer this without saying, oh its cause ppl finish work at about 5pm and need time to get to chess.

gg''
Don't know the answer to your question.

When we were a small Club starting at 8pm (with analogue clocks) it was not unusual for a game to adjourned (formally with sealed envelopes) at 1am. At the stage the Club was only old fogies.

After the junior explosion we have come to start at 7.45pm and we have not had an adjourned game for 5 years. I think the 75 minutes + 30sec/move allowed by the digital clocks, is our longest time-control (except when we are host venue for some VIC Champ. games)
starter

ps We are contemplating a 7.30 start.

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 08:41 AM
As it turned out Black won the game anyway, but had that not happened Black would be entitled to be highly aggrieved at White saving the game by such blatantly illegal behaviour. I'll avoid the word "cheating" as White may have genuinely not known the rules.

I have little doubt that the mistake was due to lack of knowledge of the rules rather than an attempt to cheat. Although I think it is pretty easy to determine that such behaviour could not be legal from first principles (ie without knowing or referring to the rules) as such a situation would cause intolerable interuption in every such time scramble. However, in the heat of battle one does not always think of such things.

ursogr8
19-08-2004, 08:48 AM
OK, White and Black were playing a game. The time controls were 40 moves in 90 minutes then 30 minutes for the remaining moves.

:eek: :eek:
Barry
Guillotine finishes sort of disappeared from our tournaments when we replaced all analogues with digitals; and with that disapperance also we have noted that time-fracas have virtually disappeared too. The Arbiters lot is greatly simplified.
starter

Rincewind
19-08-2004, 09:00 AM
Guillotine finishes sort of disappeared from our tournaments when we replaced all analogues with digitals; and with that disapperance also we have noted that time-fracas have virtually disappeared too. The Arbiters lot is greatly simplified.

This is starting to get off topic. I'll reply to your comment but if anyone wants to debate the pros and cons of incremental time contols please start a new thread.

I am a big fan of the incremental time control. However, it's take up at my club has been slow (despite having ample digital timepieces). The main reason for this inertia is the requirement to finish all games by 12 midnight. The DOP is concerned that time controls like 75+30s/move will occasionally lead to overstepping this time limit. The other issue is there seems to be some suspicion of the digital clocks by some of the more "traditional" players.

Garvinator
19-08-2004, 12:58 PM
the thread policeman has stepped in again and moved the last post about incremental time controls to a new thread called incremental time controls :uhoh: