PDA

View Full Version : article 9.5



Garvinator
26-08-2004, 04:41 PM
Last week at my club, there was a correct claim for 50 move draw which was granted.

According to article 9.5, if this claim was rejected, time penalties are introduced. With the use of dgt's, does this mean this rule is now outdated.

For instance, the rules states if the person has more than two minutes- deduct half of his/her available time. Well available time would include the increment time as well. Not just the time stated on the clock.

Further thoughts/disagreements.

arosar
26-08-2004, 05:01 PM
Listen man....there's an Arbiter's corner thread, alright.

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 05:53 PM
Last week at my club, there was a correct claim for 50 move draw which was granted.

According to article 9.5, if this claim was rejected, time penalties are introduced. With the use of dgt's, does this mean this rule is now outdated.

For instance, the rules states if the person has more than two minutes- deduct half of his/her available time. Well available time would include the increment time as well. Not just the time stated on the clock.

Further thoughts/disagreements.
I disagree with you.
Whether its digital or analog makes no difference.

Article 9.5 states
If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

The intention is clear. The increment is irrelevant.
The arbiter reduces the time on the clock as it currently stands in accordance with the article.
The arbiter

Garvinator
26-08-2004, 05:59 PM
I disagree with you.
Whether its digital or analog makes no difference.

Article 9.5 states
If the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than two minutes on his clock the arbiter shall deduct half of the claimant's remaining time up to a maximum of three minutes. If the claimant has more than one minute, but less than two minutes, his remaining time shall be one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

The intention is clear. The increment is irrelevant.
The arbiter reduces the time on the clock as it currently stands in accordance with the article.
The arbiter


and as was one of my queries, perhaps the rule needs to be re written to allow for increment play, the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play. :eek:

I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.

arosar
26-08-2004, 06:33 PM
the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play.

Why does it need to be "harsh"? The rule, as is, achieves much the same effect whether TC is guillotine or incremental.

You really are a dangerous person gray. Sadistic!

AR

Bill Gletsos
26-08-2004, 06:54 PM
and as was one of my queries, perhaps the rule needs to be re written to allow for increment play, the reason in my opinion being that the current penalties are not as harsh with increment play as with guillotine play. :eek:
I agree with Ar.
There is no requirement for it to be harsh.
In fact as it stands there is a maximum penalty of 3 minutes anyway.


I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.
I see no reason to change it.

Garvinator
27-08-2004, 01:30 AM
I see no reason to change it.
my main point was that some of the rules as they are at the moment should be reviewed now that increments are used. Werent most of the rules written when no increment play was the only way to go.

So let me understand this Bill, you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?

Garvinator
27-08-2004, 01:32 AM
There is no requirement for it to be harsh.
i didnt say it has to be harsh, i said that the penalty 'harshness' has changed from when guillotine was the 'only' method of time control.

The penalty now is less with increments. I am saying that the penalty with increments should be brought into line to the same standard as before increments.

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2004, 04:39 AM
my main point was that some of the rules as they are at the moment should be reviewed now that increments are used. Werent most of the rules written when no increment play was the only way to go.

There are a number of increment rules that are odd. For instance, situations where players can move in and out of being required to score (for this reason increments <30 secs are not ideal in games where scoring is desired.)


So let me understand this Bill, you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?

I think that triple repeat situation we were talking about will occur sometime and would be surprised if it has not already. Also that is quite a serious case - the player either gets a draw on the spot, or doesn't.

As for the case you mention, incorrect 50 move draw claims must be very rare, but incorrect triple rep claims are really quite common. I have arbited at least two and been on the receiving end of one. (The one where I was on the receiving end was very lucky because there was a triple rep but opponent claimed it at the wrong time, and I went on to win.)


I think that adding a section for the amount of increment deducted is the way to go.

Too impractical - clocks generally won't do it, you'd have to have an arbiter standing over them adjusting the clock every move. Also they might get away with not scoring then, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

If this was to be changed, I'd put something like:

9.5c. In a game or final phase of a game where thirty seconds or more is added to the player's clocks after each move, if the claim is found to be incorrect, the arbiter shall add three minutes to the opponent's remaining time. Additionally, if the claimant has more than four minutes on his clock, the arbiter shall deduct three minutes from the claimant's remaining time. If the claimant has between one and four minutes, the arbiter shall reduce the claimant's remaining time to one minute. If the claimant has less than one minute, the arbiter shall make no adjustment to the claimant's clock. Then the game shall continue and the intended move must be made.

This is still less harsh than what is there for set-time games and I suspect the Rules Committee has many bigger fish to fry in the current review. (Like my proposed anti-Geurtification of 10.2 which has, to my surprise, made it to "final proposal" stage with just a very small change. :lol: )

Remember that a player who repeatedly makes obviously wrong draw claims to gain thinking time can be given the raspberry under Article 12.1. 9.5 exists to deal with honest errors and therefore exactly how harsh it is doesn't really matter that much. Remember also that the opponent always gets 3 minutes.

Garvinator
27-08-2004, 10:04 AM
There are a number of increment rules that are odd. For instance, situations where players can move in and out of being required to score (for this reason increments <30 secs are not ideal in games where scoring is desired.) The interpretation i have heard of up here is that as soon as you go under 5 minutes with less than 30 secs per move, you dont have to record anymore. Is this incorrect? I think this is how it is played up here. Does this need changing?



Too impractical - clocks generally won't do it, you'd have to have an arbiter standing over them adjusting the clock every move. Also they might get away with not scoring then, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
I meant a rule change, not a clock change :uhoh:

arosar
27-08-2004, 10:21 AM
. . . you are saying that there should be a change to a three repeat situation that will probably never occur, but no change for a rule that is likely to occur in some games?

Change defective or obsolete rules, by all means. But this ought to be done on a rule-by-rule basis and not en masse for the sake of it.

AR

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2004, 01:56 AM
The interpretation i have heard of up here is that as soon as you go under 5 minutes with less than 30 secs per move, you dont have to record anymore. Is this incorrect? I think this is how it is played up here. Does this need changing?

Art 8.4 says "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." It does not say "no longer obliged" and reads as clearly in present tense.

I do think it is a bit irregular, but if you let players stop scoring permanently then it is too easy for players (in events not constantly supervised) to say "I've got 14 mins on my clock now but I only had four and a half left on move 20 and have been blitzing ever since then" when this may not be actually true. The best solutions are to either simply not use sub-30 sec add-ons in long games, or else keep them so small that it is unlikely to matter (10 secs is sometimes used to avoid guillotine issues incl. Art 10.2 - although IMO both these reasons for using it are overstated).


I meant a rule change, not a clock change :uhoh:

But are you suggesting a player should have their increment reduced as a penalty? If so, how do you implement it?

Garvinator
28-08-2004, 11:41 AM
Art 8.4 says "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." It does not say "no longer obliged" and reads as clearly in present tense. just want to clarify, this interpretation that is quite often used up here is incorrect. A player who has less than 30 seconds increment is to record resume recording when they have more than 5 minutes on their clock.

Interesting situation then, the player has a 20 second increment, the player has been under 5 minutes for quite a few moves, then they go over the 5 minutes and they then have to start recording. If this was both players situation, then they would have no clue what move it was etc.



But are you suggesting a player should have their increment reduced as a penalty? If so, how do you implement it?
cant the clocks be adjusted for this situation?

Kevin Bonham
29-08-2004, 09:25 PM
just want to clarify, this interpretation that is quite often used up here is incorrect. A player who has less than 30 seconds increment is to record resume recording when they have more than 5 minutes on their clock.

It may be that the interpretation you mention is common, I don't know. I think this rule is a bit of a joke whichever way you interpret it and this is one reason why it is not a good idea to use such increments.

I think my interpretation is much closer to what the rule actually literally says but I wouldn't say an arbiter who used the other one was totally "wrong".


Interesting situation then, the player has a 20 second increment, the player has been under 5 minutes for quite a few moves, then they go over the 5 minutes and they then have to start recording. If this was both players situation, then they would have no clue what move it was etc.

This is why the rule as literally written is silly for these particular increments. Players moving in and out of having to score is silly, players being able to cop out of scoring by saying "look I had 4:59 on move 15" is silly.


cant the clocks be adjusted for this situation?

I expect some could but what about the more basic models? Do they allow increments for each player to be reset midgame individually?

Garvinator
29-08-2004, 09:33 PM
It may be that the interpretation you mention is common, I don't know. I think this rule is a bit of a joke whichever way you interpret it and this is one reason why it is not a good idea to use such increments. agreed


I think my interpretation is much closer to what the rule actually literally says but I wouldn't say an arbiter who used the other one was totally "wrong". hence why some rules i believe need to be re written. either adjustment to the current rules, or a different set of rules for increment and non increment play.


This is why the rule as literally written is silly for these particular increments. Players moving in and out of having to score is silly, players being able to cop out of scoring by saying "look I had 4:59 on move 15" is silly. I have done this under the interpretation up, not as bad as you illustrate though. Had a few games where i have had say 5:20 secs on my clock for a few moves(less than 30 sec increment) and have allowed my clock to run under 5 min so i dont have to record anymore.



I expect some could but what about the more basic models? Do they allow increments for each player to be reset midgame individually?
i have not been able to work out how to do it yet. Different increments can be set at the start of the game, but i dont know about mid game after starting with the same increment. Can anyone else help on this matter (maybe i might have to create a new thread on this matter)

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2004, 05:53 AM
hence why some rules i believe need to be re written. either adjustment to the current rules, or a different set of rules for increment and non increment play.

FIDE are just about to do the rewrite of the laws that happens every 4 years. Gijssen was advertising details of this on his chesscafe.com columns a while back. I am not sure if they are still taking comments as a final draft of proposed changes has just been sent out.


I have done this under the interpretation up, not as bad as you illustrate though. Had a few games where i have had say 5:20 secs on my clock for a few moves(less than 30 sec increment) and have allowed my clock to run under 5 min so i dont have to record anymore.

This is exactly why I would not personally use that interpretation - the point of the rules is to encourage players to record so that the games and info from them required to resolve disputes are as complete as possible. You are only normally exempt when so short of time that scoring places you at enormous risk of loss on time (or of extra blunders in avoiding loss on time). As discussed re 9.5, what is time trouble in a normal game is not really time trouble in a game where you get extra time per move. If you are getting 15-20 secs added then there is really no reason why you cannot keep scoring until you get below, say, two minutes.

The only argument I can see for that interpretation is that it avoids the absurd situations created by players drifting in and out of being required to score.