PDA

View Full Version : What should the consequences be for Someone who cheats???



The_Wise_Man
30-05-2004, 10:45 PM
This is my first post on the board....

I have a question... What should be done to a game where the opponent decides to review his scorebook on move 5.

The tournament organiser having stated that scorebooks were not permissble in the tournament... and the opponent having admitted that he was looking for the variation (claiming he was looking to write the ECO code for the variant).

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

What should happen in the game and secondly to the player?

The_Wise_Man

Kevin Bonham
30-05-2004, 10:55 PM
That's two offences - one for ignoring a tournament regulation, one for using notes to (potentially) book up. Writing the ECO code is not a defence because recording the ECO code mid-game is strictly speaking illegal. You do that sort of thing after the game has finished.

Stern warning and five minutes off own clock for that I reckon. Forfeit and possible disciplinary action for any similar form of note-using by same player later in the tournament.

Rincewind
30-05-2004, 10:58 PM
This is my first post on the board....

I have a question... What should be done to a game where the opponent decides to review his scorebook on move 5.

The tournament organiser having stated that scorebooks were not permissble in the tournament... and the opponent having admitted that he was looking for the variation (claiming he was looking to write the ECO code for the variant).

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

What should happen in the game and secondly to the player?

I don't think the penalty is prescribed by the rules but the player is obviously breaking the rules, making use of notes, etc. I think the penalty should be severe as it is highly unlikely the player is unaware that he is doing something wrong.

What happens to the game would depend on the penalty imposed by the arbiter. If the game is ruled lost by forfeit then I think the game should be annulled (not rated) but the point awarded to the opponent (as per a no-show forfeit).

PHAT
30-05-2004, 11:00 PM
This is my first post on the board....

I have a question... What should be done to a game where the opponent decides to review his scorebook on move 5.

The tournament organiser having stated that scorebooks were not permissble in the tournament... and the opponent having admitted that he was looking for the variation (claiming he was looking to write the ECO code for the variant).

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

What should happen in the game and secondly to the player?

The_Wise_Man

The scorebook reviewer should been given the loss. It is unfgortnate but we gotta be strict. The reviewer has, buy the loss, had enough "punishment". Repeat offence: a disqualification.

IMHO, "the wise ame" is a tad hubristic for this BB.

Rincewind
30-05-2004, 11:16 PM
IMHO, "the wise ame" is a tad hubristic for this BB.

I was intrigued and assumed it was a reference to the Magi.

jenni
30-05-2004, 11:36 PM
This is my first post on the board....

I have a question... What should be done to a game where the opponent decides to review his scorebook on move 5.

The tournament organiser having stated that scorebooks were not permissble in the tournament... and the opponent having admitted that he was looking for the variation (claiming he was looking to write the ECO code for the variant).

:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

What should happen in the game and secondly to the player?

The_Wise_Man

Ok - I'd be pretty sure this is the incident from Doeberl and I was part of the disputes committee that looked at this along with Graeme Gardiner and Gary Lane.

An ACT Junior was involved and he was obviously in the wrong for having his scorebook with him. He is quite new to chess - been playing at Belconnen and I think this was the first weekender he had played in. He hadn't heard that he wasn't allowed to use his score book. (Typical kid - doesn't listen wihen the DOP is speaking - I now make it part of what I tell the kids at Junior Tournaments that they have to pay attention and use this incident as an example of how not listening to the DOP can get you into mega trouble).

He was also very proud of the front part of the book, where you record who you played and the result and write down what the opening was. He was busily trying to fill in the bit where you put down the name of the opening, wasn't sure exactly what he was playing and so flicked through the book trying to find a game that matched the moves they were playing, so he could be sure he had the name right when he wrote it down.

I played him last year at Belconnen and he was almost hyper ventilating because he was so scared to be playing a good player like me! this gives you some idea of where he is in chess playing strength.

Gary had a look at the games he had played using this opening and told me that the complainant should encourage the boy to copy the moves, because he had no idea what he was doing and had lost every game he had played with that opening.

The boy was given a severe warning, the book was confiscated until after the tournament and everyone reminded that they couldn't use scorebooks. The complainant asked if the game could be restarted and that was done.

PHAT
30-05-2004, 11:51 PM
This bringsto the fore another metter. I was sittting ang listening OTB to the DOP's "instructions" at the start of the round following this incident. this "no record book allowed" rule was the first I hadd everer heard any where at any time.WTF is going on that I had no varifiablle way of knowing about this new rule until then , and then, no way for officials prove that I knew it ??

Bill Gletsos
31-05-2004, 12:03 AM
This bringsto the fore another metter. I was sittting ang listening OTB to the DOP's "instructions" at the start of the round following this incident. this "no record book allowed" rule was the first I hadd everer heard any where at any time.WTF is going on that I had no varifiablle way of knowing about this new rule until then , and then, no way for officials prove that I knew it ??
One would have thought a "common man" like you would have common sense and realise its a case of using notes. :whistle:

jenni
31-05-2004, 12:04 AM
This bringsto the fore another metter. I was sittting ang listening OTB to the DOP's "instructions" at the start of the round following this incident. this "no record book allowed" rule was the first I hadd everer heard any where at any time.WTF is going on that I had no varifiablle way of knowing about this new rule until then , and then, no way for officials prove that I knew it ??

It was just a tournament specific rule that they were using for Doeberl - as I understand it a DOP can make general rules like this. It was announced at the beginning of the tournament, but as usual most of the people were chatting and not paying that much attention. After the incident it was announced again.

Even if score books were allowed to be used the boy's behaviour was wrong - he shouldn't have been filling in the front and he shouldn't have been flicking through the book. Unfortunately it was more a lack of knowledge of correct behaviour - I know the kid and he wasn't cheating.

He started playing chess competitively when he got to High School and never came through any ACTJCL tournaments. We try to use them as a training ground for kids and teach them correct way to behave and take any bad behaviour at an adult comp seriously.

The boy was terrified at what happened and has learnt a lot from the experience.

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2004, 12:07 AM
The boy was given a severe warning, the book was confiscated until after the tournament and everyone reminded that they couldn't use scorebooks. The complainant asked if the game could be restarted and that was done.

I too would allow a restart if the complainant requested it. Perhaps I would even ask the complainant if he/she wanted a restart.

shaun
31-05-2004, 12:12 PM
It was just a tournament specific rule that they were using for Doeberl - as I understand it a DOP can make general rules like this. It was announced at the beginning of the tournament, but as usual most of the people were chatting and not paying that much attention. After the incident it was announced again.

It is a rule I announce at every tournament I direct. For this Doeberl Cup is was explicitly discussed by the arbiting team before the start, and was announced as part of the run down of rules before the first round.
Why do I have this rule? Because the type of incident refered to has happened at previous events I have directed (including Doeberl Cups). And usually only one side is happy with the outcome. So to try and prevent it from happening we act pre-emptively.
Even in rounds after this there was a player still using a scorebook, which we confiscated immeadiatley.
Of course if chess players don't listen to the rules it just makes the organisers jobs a little harder ....

Kevin Bonham
31-05-2004, 01:13 PM
Of course if chess players don't listen to the rules it just makes the organisers jobs a little harder ....

As Reuben puts it in his organisers' handbook "No player ever listens". I read Article 10.2 before every relevant tournament I run, and explain it, and there are still people who don't know how to use it correctly.

bobby1972
31-05-2004, 02:50 PM
what should be done? that depends on,weight,reach,how big ,natural fighting ability,witnesses,police records,experince in street fighting ,if you had a bad day he he he.

The_Wise_Man
08-03-2005, 12:27 PM
to avoid as many under-rated juniors as possible....
(including the ones that cheat and then are given favourable treatment by the organisers....)

The_Wise_Man
08-03-2005, 12:47 PM
if I again get rorted by a cheating junior....
Its a new charge for this year.... but I will pay it to expose and expel a cheat!

jenni
08-03-2005, 09:54 PM
to avoid as many under-rated juniors as possible....
(including the ones that cheat and then are given favourable treatment by the organisers....)

Oh honestly!!!!

He didn't cheat - he was a mug kid.

Gary Lane made the statement to you, after looking at the kid's score book when he sat in on the panel that if the kid was looking at past games then he was giving you a major advantage as he played rubbish.

Grame Gardiner, Gary Lane and myself sat on the appeals committee and reviewed the complaint. He was not given favourable treatment - do we really need to trample a junior into the dirt, because he didn't understand what he was doing.

The poor child was scared witless by your reaction - I think you should be adult enough to let it rest already!!!!!!

arosar
08-03-2005, 09:56 PM
Is this still that event last year??

FMD!! I just realised which Chris it is!!

AR

jenni
08-03-2005, 10:00 PM
Is this still that event last year??

FMD!! I just realised which Chris it is!!

AR

Yes - its still the same one he's going on about. Talk about women nagging. :)

arosar
08-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Oh honestly!!!!

He didn't cheat - he was a mug kid.

. . . .

do we really need to trample a junior into the dirt, because he didn't understand what he was doing.

But look what you're doing Mrs Oliver calling him a mug kid. How awful! Honestly!!!!

AR

jenni
08-03-2005, 10:14 PM
But look what you're doing Mrs Oliver calling him a mug kid. How awful! Honestly!!!!

AR

Yeah that's me - I have a reputation of being brutally honest.

Garvinator
08-03-2005, 10:45 PM
Oh honestly!!!!

He didn't cheat - he was a mug kid.

Gary Lane made the statement to you, after looking at the kid's score book when he sat in on the panel that if the kid was looking at past games then he was giving you a major advantage as he played rubbish.

Grame Gardiner, Gary Lane and myself sat on the appeals committee and reviewed the complaint. He was not given favourable treatment - do we really need to trample a junior into the dirt, because he didn't understand what he was doing.

The poor child was scared witless by your reaction - I think you should be adult enough to let it rest already!!!!!!
what was the situation alleged and what was the tournament?

Trent Parker
08-03-2005, 11:05 PM
what was the situation alleged and what was the tournament?

search is your friend gray! :D :D :D

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=667&highlight=scorebook

The_Wise_Man
09-03-2005, 01:06 AM
A cheating mind will always cheat....

I got a rough deal from the Kangaroo Court.... based on not fact but mitigating circumstances....

Just a warning to everyone.... don't appeal against a kid, there is too many people like Jenni that will tell you that the kid cannot do no wrong.... they are young and innocent and couldn't possibly be cheating....

Garvinator
09-03-2005, 01:12 AM
A cheating mind will always cheat....

I got a rough deal from the Kangaroo Court.... based on not fact but mitigating circumstances....

Just a warning to everyone.... don't appeal against a kid, there is too many people like Jenni that will tell you that the kid cannot do no wrong.... they are young and innocent and couldn't possibly be cheating....
i would like to know though who decided the appeals committee. I would have had an issue with such a junior affiliated appeals committee with an appeal against also a junior. Also I would have been raising the fact that one of the ppl on the appeals committee was from the act when the appeal involved an act player. Normally in that case, there would not be an act person on the appeals committee.
I know this is Doeberl and it is held in the act, but with 200 odd ppl, the normal practice of ppl from different states for appeals committee's surely should have been met.

The_Wise_Man
09-03-2005, 01:25 AM
A hastily put-together Appeals Committee....with a definate junior bias...
but there was no choice....

and it was my first weekend tournament in over 10 years and first time in Canberra.... but did I get any special consideration... no....

I know what I will be doing this year if the same situation comes up.

Garvinator
09-03-2005, 01:30 AM
A hastily put-together Appeals Committee....with a definate junior bias...
but there was no choice....
I find this unlikely with over 200 players plus also parents, coaches etc there.


I know what I will be doing this year if the same situation comes up. and what is that?

Ian Rout
09-03-2005, 08:25 AM
I'm not familiar with the full circumstances of this incident so I can't comment in detail. However one thing that The Wise Man may not be so wise about is that an appeals committee need not give a zero-sum outcome. It could deduct the opponent's point without giving it to him and this is the most likely alternative outcome given that there is no evidence that his loss was due to the incident, in fact in spite of it according to the reported comments by Gary Lane. Accordingly it is unlikely that he was deprived of anything apart from the satisfaction of seeing the result at 0:0.

Nevertheless scorebooks are an accident waiting to happen. They can always spring back or blow in the breeze and leave a suspicion that a player may have caught a glance. I don't believe a player would be allowed to have a copy of NCO on the table to rest the scoresheet on. I think it would be better if arbiters prohibited the use of scorebooks and maybe FIDE could look at this, rather than wasting their energy on matters like whether players can capture the King in blitz.

Rincewind
09-03-2005, 08:39 AM
Nevertheless scorebooks are an accident waiting to happen. They can always spring back or blow in the breeze and leave a suspicion that a player may have caught a glance. I don't believe a player would be allowed to have a copy of NCO on the table to rest the scoresheet on. I think it would be better if arbiters prohibited the use of scorebooks and maybe FIDE could look at this, rather than wasting their energy on matters like whether players can capture the King in blitz.

I disagree that clarify the rules on King capture is a waste of time. However, I agree about scorebooks. Perhaps like players could start a movement by requesting that they opponent's not use one; first of their opponent and then of the DOP. Even if you get a knock back at least you are on record as protesting against their use.

antichrist
09-03-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally Posted by jenni
Oh honestly!!!!

He didn't cheat - he was a mug kid.

Gary Lane made the statement to you, after looking at the kid's score book when he sat in on the panel that if the kid was looking at past games then he was giving you a major advantage as he played rubbish.

AC:
Not necessarily so, the child could be trying to see what rubbish he has played previously to know that to avoid that rubbish again. Must admit would be a long shot.

Without knowing the players, if a kid has played rubbish the whole tourney he must be on the very bottom of the ladder, and for this Wise Guy to be playing him he must have been down there as well. I would be trying to hide it rather than exposing it.

Rincewind
09-03-2005, 12:11 PM
Not necessarily so, the child could be trying to see what rubbish he has played previously to know that to avoid that rubbish again. Must admit would be a long shot.

Well done AC that is a quite a novel point. :clap:

Perhaps I'll publish a book of my games with the title of "This is the Rubbish You Should be Avoiding". I'm sure it would be an instant best seller and banned in playing venues around the country, if not world. ;)

Oepty
09-03-2005, 12:26 PM
I guess it is also possible in such a situation that person might look at their scorebook to try and find a strong move an opponent played against them.
Scott

jenni
09-03-2005, 12:55 PM
Ok - lets have the fact as I know them and maybe wise man can give his side of it.

The facts.

We have a kid who has only being playing chess for a short while. He has bought a score book, because he thinks this is a terribly professional thing to have. He is industriously keeping the front bit up to date and finding out what the openings are called and writing them in. He's played in a few tournaments at BCC - I actually played him there in his first one and the kid was literally shaking because he had to play such a strong player ( :lol: ). His actually is quite a good player, but really doesn't know very much, has never had coaching and has never played ACTJCL long time control games.

He plays his first weekender at Doeberl and is so busy talking to mates he doesn't hear he is not allowed to use a scorebook. Somehow he manages to play 4 games, without anyone telling him he shouldn't be using his book. He's had an Ok tournament but not flash. Drawn with a 1500 point player in the first round, lost the second then drawn with an unrated, and beaten a 500 point player.

The problem is wiseman is having a bit of a rough time. He has struggled in his first game agianst a 1000 point player - won in the end, but it wasn't easy (wiseman was rated in the 1500's). He has then lost to a 1300, beaten a 1200 and lost to another 1300. (So he is coming into his 5th game on 2 out of 4 and probably feeling a little anxious. (My opinion, not fact :) )

The boy is a bit bored at the beginning, decides to enter in the info at the front of his blue book, writes down his name, his opponent and wants to fill in the opening. He actually can't remember exactly what it is that he is playing against and flicks through the book to find the moves, so he can check the name and write it in the front of the book. Wiseman goes beserk - according to bystanders tries to really browbeat the boy and makes all sorts of accusations.

An appeals committee is convened (none of whom are organisers) and both players are talked to. The boy's book is confiscated until the end of the tournament, he is hauled over the coals and warned that he can't ever do what he was doing.

Wiseman asks for the game to be restarted from the beginning. i.e. a totally new game. This request is granted in the interests of being as fair as possible to him. Wiseman is winning, but near the end blunders and loses. He wins his next game and draws with a 1000 point player in the last round.

I am actually quite vicious towards any junior I believe does the wrong thing. Ask the ACT kids in town - I am not Miss Popularity I promise you. Libby is, because she tends to be nice to them, but I am the mother around here and the one who does the yelling and disciplining. If I ever have a hint of cheating in a schools comp (and Libby does this too), we station a person near the table of the suspected person and pounce on them if they put a foot wrong. I promise you cheating kids don't stay around in Canberra for too long, because we make life very unpleasnt for them.

I do not think kids are all wonderful - for goodness sake - I mix with them all the time - I know what ratbags they are and that it takes a good 25 years to turn them from irresponsible, lazy and self centred beasts into decent, ethical members of society. (Longer if you are AR).

I've seen plenty of suspected cheating at the Aus Juniors. And 1 very repetitive case of cheating by an adult at ACT weekenders. Libby and I now take it in turns to watch the games by the offender (a Victorian) and keep it under control. The person is really nice and we suspect a bit senile, but the cheating only seems to happen when juniors are involved. Because the person is so nice and there has to be tolerance for age, we don't ban them, but just keep an eye out to make sure no-one is disadvantaged.

In this case no-one except Wiseman saw any cheating in what happened. Kids are shrewd - if he wanted to cheat, he would have taken the book off to the toilets and looked up the moves there. He plays fast (far too fast), so he had plenty of time.

I understand that it was an unpleasant incident for all concerned, but wiseman does no favours to himself by continuing to call a really nice and inexperienced kid a cheat. Or to bag the organisers, who treated the incident with all seriousness.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2005, 01:07 PM
I assume the reason an appeals committee was convened was because WiseMan was unhappy with the arbiters decision.

What decision did the arbiter make.

JGB
09-03-2005, 01:32 PM
Well done AC that is a quite a novel point. :clap:

Perhaps I'll publish a book of my games with the title of "This is the Rubbish You Should be Avoiding". I'm sure it would be an instant best seller and banned in playing venues around the country, if not world. ;)

:D

Remends me of a book we used have at my last club, translated something like "My Greatest 250 Mistakes", im serious!, It was written by an ex Soviet GM. The idea was that you would not makes these errors in your own games. But tell me who wants to read a 400 page book filled with blunders? You couldn't help playing his losing lines in OTB play just out of habit. Any way whenever someone Patzed a league game, I would go and fetch the "blunder Book" and just subtely place it by the players (a friend of course) side and walk away. A bit of a house joke. :whistle:

We had one other book which I always liked, it was called "How to play the Spanish game as Black" and at the end of absolutely every variation White was winning or had a great advantage! Why do you think I got stuck into that book as a player of the Lopez (as the white pieces naturally).

jenni
09-03-2005, 02:02 PM
I assume the reason an appeals committee was convened was because WiseMan was unhappy with the arbiters decision.

What decision did the arbiter make.

Shaun might be able to help. I was just asked to be on an appeals committee and decide on a plan of action.

shaun
09-03-2005, 02:06 PM
I assume the reason an appeals committee was convened was because WiseMan was unhappy with the arbiters decision.

What decision did the arbiter make.

My memory is a bit hazy but the Arbiters (plural), listened to the complaint and the defence, gave the offending player an official warning + confiscated the scorebook, but informed the other player he could appeal if he didn't like the decision. As this incident occured quite early in the game, rounding up an appeals committee was quite difficult as most players were still playing. As for allegations of bias against the commitee we saw the commitee consisting of a former ACF President, the current Australian Champion, and a Junior Organiser, which I thought covered the required bases pretty well.

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2005, 02:17 PM
My memory is a bit hazy but the Arbiters (plural), listened to the complaint and the defence, gave the offending player an official warning + confiscated the scorebook, but informed the other player he could appeal if he didn't like the decision. As this incident occured quite early in the game, rounding up an appeals committee was quite difficult as most players were still playing. As for allegations of bias against the commitee we saw the commitee consisting of a former ACF President, the current Australian Champion, and a Junior Organiser, which I thought covered the required bases pretty well.
Thanks Shaun.
Personally I would agree with the arbiters decision and dismiss any appeal.

arosar
09-03-2005, 02:23 PM
It should be standard practice here to enlist a group of 3 players (+ 1, in case a committee member is himself involved in a dispute) to serve in a disputes committee - before round 1. This was certainly the case in NZ.

The process of selection is by nomination by the players themselves.

AR

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2005, 02:23 PM
The boy is a bit bored at the beginning, decides to enter in the info at the front of his blue book, writes down his name, his opponent and wants to fill in the opening. He actually can't remember exactly what it is that he is playing against and flicks through the book to find the moves, so he can check the name and write it in the front of the book. Wiseman goes beserk - according to bystanders tries to really browbeat the boy and makes all sorts of accusations.In this case perhaps Wiseman should be given an official warning by the arbiters for disruptive behaviour. ;)

jenni
09-03-2005, 02:46 PM
It should be standard practice here to enlist a group of 3 players (+ 1, in case a committee member is himself involved in a dispute) to serve in a disputes committee - before round 1. This was certainly the case in NZ.

The process of selection is by nomination by the players themselves.

AR

We talking about a crummy under 1600 tournament here not a national one! How many disputes committees are set up for weekenders in Sydney?

Bill Gletsos
09-03-2005, 02:58 PM
We talking about a crummy under 1600 tournament here not a national one! How many disputes committees are set up for weekenders in Sydney?I believe the answer is none.

However the NSWCA Constitution provides for election of the NSWCA Appeals Committee at the NSWCA AGM. Current members are Richard Gastineau-Hills, Kerry Stead and me, with alternates being Fred Flatow and Peter Cassettari.
In theory a NSWCA tournament appeals committee could be overruled by the NSWCA Appeals Committee whose decision is final. There has also been the case of NSW but non NSWCA events having an appeal heard by the NSWCA Appeals Committee.

antichrist
09-03-2005, 03:04 PM
Well done AC that is a quite a novel point. :clap:

Perhaps I'll publish a book of my games with the title of "This is the Rubbish You Should be Avoiding". I'm sure it would be an instant best seller and banned in playing venues around the country, if not world. ;)

There already is a called something like "How not to play chess" which had all the chap's losing game, if I remember correctly.

Another book was titled something like "How to beat Bobby Fisher" or someone famous, no advice in it, just all his losing games.

eclectic
09-03-2005, 03:05 PM
Why can't players be made to fill out particulars of themselves and their opponent BEFORE the game?

If things got really sophisticated score sheets with names and ratings already inserted could be printed out once the round pairings were decided.

The above idea might not be so good though because there is often an announcment by the arbiter to the effect of ...

"Oh! there's been a slight change in the pairings ..."

We mustn't have paper being wasted!

I always like those quaint little juniors who ask if you can write your name in for them, even bigger juniors sometimes for that matter.

It's a subtle form of sweettalking or buttering up your opponent ie that if this junior doesn't know how to write down your name or fill in score sheets then most likely they can't play chess.

I often wonder if there is a FIDE (and by default ACF) law that only the player can write on his/ her scoresheet and perhaps too the arbiter or a delegate in the event of disability etc.

I can't see why someone can't simply go to the pairings board before the game and find out who they are playing and write it down.

Simple, isn't it?

eclectic

jenni
09-03-2005, 03:27 PM
I always like those quaint little juniors who ask if you can write your name in for them, even bigger juniors sometimes for that matter.

It's a subtle form of sweettalking or buttering up your opponent ie that if this junior doesn't know how to write down your name or fill in score sheets then most likely they can't play chess.

I often wonder if there is a FIDE (and by default ACF) law that only the player can write on his/ her scoresheet and perhaps too the arbiter or a delegate in the event of disability etc.

I can't see why someone can't simply go to the pairings board before the game and find out who they are playing and write it down.

Simple, isn't it?

eclectic

The really little juniors (and some of the bigger ones) are usually so disorganised that just getting to their seat in time is a major ask.

They usually get there and have no idea who they are playing (or how to spell the name if they do). They are then between a rock and a hard place. If they get up to go and find out who they are playing, an aggravated mother will probably yell at them for leaving their seat. (The aggravated mother having only just managed to extract them from their magic game in the analysis room). On the other hand if the opponents name is not written down properly then their coach/father will yell at them for not having the correct info. Solution - pass the scoresheet over to the opponent and everyone is happy. There is also an element of trust there, that the person opposite them is a nice kind helpful adult. Of course that trust is quickly beaten out of them as they get to know chess adults, particularly if they stay in under 1600 divisions for very long.

arosar
09-03-2005, 03:27 PM
We talking about a crummy under 1600 tournament here not a national one! How many disputes committees are set up for weekenders in Sydney?

We're talking about the U1600 section in our premiere event.

And that it is U1600 makes no diff.

AR

jenni
09-03-2005, 03:42 PM
We're talking about the U1600 section in our premiere event.

And that it is U1600 makes no diff.

AR

The point is you are comparing a major national event (where dispute committees always set up), with a weekender. This has nothing to do with me - I am sure Shaun and the others will comment on whether a disputes committee for Doeberl is desirable or even needed.

However I would be interested out of blatant curiosity whether other states set up dispute committees for weekenders.

Seems to me that most of these minor disputes can be handled with a bit of pragmatism and good will. e.g with the cheating person from Victoria, I think we came up with a solution that allowed them to continue playing, but didn't result in kids losing their games. (We had at least one junior in 2003 who lost a game because of this person).

Unfortunately thre always seem to be adults around where it is life and death stuff, not just a game.

antichrist
09-03-2005, 03:42 PM
Originally Posted by jenni
We talking about a crummy under 1600 tournament here not a national one! How many disputes committees are set up for weekenders in Sydney?

AC:
Sometimes we have set up such committees with top players for the Sydeny Easter Cup. But I don't think that we necessarily got better decisions because of it.

I thought a top player was hard done and lost the tournament because of it to tell the truth.

Myself a low player, have arbited a couple times and took on the likes of Johnny Bolens in disputes. I conferred with a few high players but made my own decisions. Each time it was supported by the rest of players (vested interest??) but Johnny kept coming back the following year.

arosar
09-03-2005, 04:02 PM
The point is you are comparing a major national event (where dispute committees always set up), with a weekender. This has nothing to do with me - I am sure Shaun and the others will comment on whether a disputes committee for Doeberl is desirable or even needed.

I wasn't actually comparing the 2 events as such. In any case - given that Doeberl is quite large and especially that it is attended by so many top class players, a committee, it seems to me, is absolutely necessary. What harm does it actually do anyway by having one - no matter who the members are and how they are appointed?

AR

rob
09-03-2005, 04:18 PM
The point is you are comparing a major national event (where dispute committees always set up), with a weekender. This has nothing to do with me - I am sure Shaun and the others will comment on whether a disputes committee for Doeberl is desirable or even needed.

However I would be interested out of blatant curiosity whether other states set up dispute committees for weekenders.

In WA the DOP usually co-opts 2 relatively knowledgeable persons to join him in a 3 person disputes committee and announces these persons at the start of round 1.

Ian Rout
09-03-2005, 04:26 PM
I don't think it hurts to have a committee ready though the downside is that you can't include participants, who may not be available when the dispute blows up (not a problem in NZ with one round per day). The approach may be to finger a number of people in advance, who could be called on to make up a committee depending on who's available.

jenni
09-03-2005, 04:28 PM
I wasn't actually comparing the 2 events as such. In any case - given that Doeberl is quite large and especially that it is attended by so many top class players, a committee, it seems to me, is absolutely necessary. What harm does it actually do anyway by having one - no matter who the members are and how they are appointed?

AR

I don't think it does any harm - the organising committee might take it on board, as there have been a number of dipsutes over the years, although I am not sure having a disputes committee in place would have helped in most of them. e.g. fg7 fisticuffs.

My observation over the years - most of the really acrimonious disputes are at the lower end of the gene pool, not among the top class players....

The_Wise_Man
09-03-2005, 04:55 PM
My observation over the years - most of the really acrimonious disputes are at the lower end of the gene pool, not among the top class players....

Don't get nasty now Jenny....

jenni
09-03-2005, 05:01 PM
Don't get nasty now Jenny....

Don't worry - its the area I belong in as well.... :)

The_Wise_Man
09-03-2005, 05:03 PM
Irrelevent Facts that the Appeals Committee took into account.

The offender was a junior.
The offender had lost their previous games against this opening.
The offender's rating differential was considered.
The offender had played or was known to a member in the Appeals Committee (Jenni) who had a perceived bias towards the Canberra junior.

Key item ignored

Offender admitted to looking through his scorebook looking for the exact Opening

The_Wise_Man
09-03-2005, 05:10 PM
If you are paying for appeals ($20 this year....)
then you need to make sure you have a proper process in place...

eclectic
09-03-2005, 05:15 PM
If you are paying for appeals ($20 this year....)
then you need to make sure you have a proper process in place...

we could make the arbiter's decision FINAL and bypass all this appeals cr*p, couldn't we?

:angry:

eclectic

Libby
09-03-2005, 05:32 PM
Irrelevent Facts that the Appeals Committee took into account.

The offender was a junior.
The offender had lost their previous games against this opening.
The offender's rating differential was considered.
The offender had played or was known to a member in the Appeals Committee (Jenni) who had a perceived bias towards the Canberra junior.

Key item ignored

Offender admitted to looking through his scorebook looking for the exact Opening

:bored: :bored: :bored:

Jenni alluded to an incident at the 2003 Doeberl. It involved my daughter, playing the event for the first time.

I was not watching her game but became concerned by the body language I could see across the room. I went over to watch and observed an opponent touch pieces, then move others. My daughter points this out and the opponent glances at me before making a move with the original piece. My daughter is losing and the game is close to completion.

At the end of the game, my daughter (then 9) gets up abruptly from the table and bursts into tears. Half-angry I haul her off, ready to chastise her for making a mountain out of a simple loss. She is extremely distressed and I eventually find out she should have won a queen for nix in the first 10 moves of the game but her opponent took back a move and claimed never to have made it.

I ask my daughter why she didn't call over an arbiter but she felt there was "no point" because no one would believe her ahead of her adult opponent. This is probably a pretty fair assessment from the kind but sceptical feedback I received at the time.

Almost every junior who has subsequently played the same adult at major weekenders in Canberra has reported similar issues and there were several complaints last year at Doeberl and the arbiter was called to the player's games several times at the ANU Open. Jenni and I keep a bit of an eye on the games now, particularly where very young and not so assertive juniors are involved.

Classic example from Doeberl last year. Player captures a pawn with a Knight and removes captured pawn from the board. Realises this is not such a good move and returns pawn to board and removes Knight to previously occupied square and attempts a different move. I WAS WATCHING THAT GAME and I saw that happen and I saw the young girl full of uncertainty about what she should do.

The player involved is quite elderly and Jenni and myself have no wish to cause them distress or embarressment. Should they play again, we will again keep an eye on the games and make sure the arbiter is aware of any problems. we also forewarn the children and make sure they know what to do if they have a problem.

I guess we could throw the book at them and expel them from the tournament? Maybe (in reality) that is what should happen. My daughter views this player with some suspicion but would I want her carrying on years down the track about an incident like this? (And don't forget - this incident really did cost her the game - she had no restart). I think she's managed to get over it and I think she had more reason to feel cheated.

Get over it. I arrived after this scorebook incident last year and I can't vouch for exactly what anyone intended or didn't intend to do. I can only say I met a deeply distressed boy (who I have always found to be an honest and well intentioned kid) who was devastated that people would forever view him as a cheat for a MISTAKE.

It was my advice that nobody who mattered would ever see him that way because we all knew better.

And that was not to excuse him from his mistake - he knew, and I explained, that he may lose the game as a consequence but that would be something he would have to cop on the chin if that was the decision of the committee.

shaun
09-03-2005, 05:34 PM
If you are paying for appeals ($20 this year....)
then you need to make sure you have a proper process in place...

I am missing what was wrong with last years process, apart from one person not likeing the outcome.

Thunderspirit
09-03-2005, 09:25 PM
I was the DOP concerned when wise approached me at Doeberl cup, over the issue of placing an ECO code in the front of the scorebook. Wise approached me as DOP of the minor, requesting the game be forfieted in his favour.
While I can empthaize with 'Wise' it's not as clear cut as he makes out. As the DOP I have assess the likely influence on the game, and I can't really just award a win, because 'that"s the point- he shouldn't have done it'.
For a DOP to award a win in a game the offence must be very severe, the issue that is the sticking point, that I don"t believe that the offence warranted a forfeit.
After I informed 'Wise' that I was only to warn his opponent, he immediatley requested an appeal, something that his right. He put the appeal in writing and I formed an appeals committee.
That committee was Graeme Gardiner (Former ACF President) IM Gary Lane (Australian Champion, Olympiad Board 3, and Nigel Short killer) and Jenni Oliver (former ACTJCL president, and full time resident on this BB)- I would say a pretty good appeals commitee.
Both players got a chance to have their say, and your kid invloved was scared of out of his brain, as he was read the 'riot act' he knew that he's stuffed up- and that he was in a bit of do-do, but he'll never do it again.
I wouldn't normally reveal the size of a appeals decision, but it was 3-0 in favour of my original decison. It was pointed out by Gary, that every time he played the line in question, he lost so it was extremely unlikely any knowledge could have been gained.
To be fair to Wise I can apprciate his frutstration, his opponent shouldn't have done it, but in the end I think the right decision was made.

The only way to get around it, is by putting a rule in place like the mobile ph rule: If you're ph goes off: U loose, no questions asked, the same should be made with scorebooks: "If you are caught with a scorebook at the board, you loose. (Fullstop.) You make this clear at the start of the Doeberl, and before each round (chess players, are a bit slow....) and if it happens- they loose, bad luck.

Wise- old buddy, this is best we can do. Sorry you feel that you wrong done by, I probably would have appealed too under the same curcomestances (understanding that I would have litte chance of actually winning.)

Don_Harrison
09-03-2005, 09:26 PM
If you are paying for appeals ($20 this year....)
then you need to make sure you have a proper process in place...

Awww, diddums.

Thunderspirit
09-03-2005, 09:39 PM
Awww, diddums.

Appeals: We made 'Wise' pay $20, but I"m pretty sure he got it back because it was a valid appeal.

Garvinator
10-03-2005, 12:10 AM
It seems that everyone cant seem to manage debating the same topic, or maybe I just consider one issue more important than the other.

There are two issues here:

1) The scoresheet incident
2) The make up of the appeals committee

On point 1: the relevant rule states:

Article 12: The conduct of the players

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

12.2 During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard.
The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offer of a draw, and matters relating to a claim.

12.6 Infraction of any part of the Articles 12.1 to 12.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.

13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning
2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4. declaring the game to be lost,
5. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
6. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
7. expulsion from the event.

As you can see from these rules, the only penalties that are relevant in this situation are warning or loss of game. From the previous posts made here, there was an announcement by the arbiters at the start of the tournament about scoresheets etc. If a player chooses to not listen to the announcements, that is their fault.

This means the player has already received their warning about this matter, so in my opinion that only leaves loss of game. This is my interpretation of the laws of chess.

Point 2- The appeals committee.

From what I have seen at major tournaments, normally the appeals committee is made up of five people from DIFFERENT states. Normally three people would then be in judgement of the appeal, but are not from the states of the players involved in the appeal.

In this case that would mean that there should not have been anyone from NSW or ACT on the three person appeals committee. This would mean that both Gary Lane and Jenni Oliver should not have been on the appeals committee. I find it hard to believe that 2 other people not from NSW or ACT could not be found at a tournament that has approx 250 ppl attending.

eclectic
10-03-2005, 12:26 AM
13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning
2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4. declaring the game to be lost,
5. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
6. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
7. expulsion from the event.



There should only be option 4 (with 7 as an extreme form of this).

When there are a large number of options available there is a chance of accusations of favoritism if an arbiter applies one option in one event then a different option in another or of inconsistency between arbiters which in itself might be grounds for appeal.

A person wishing for instance to continue to write moves in advance might gamble that they will only be hit with options 1, 2 or 3 by the arbiter.

The range of options implies dithering rather than decisive action and seasoned campaigners would know how to milk this for all it's worth.

eclectic.

Rhubarb
10-03-2005, 12:44 AM
When there are a large number of options available there is a chance of accusations of favoritism if an arbiter applies one option in one event then a different option in another or of inconsistency between arbiters which in itself might be grounds for appeal.Eclectic, normally I enjoy your posts but this is just ridiculous. It's like saying a judge can only apply the maximum possible sentence in every case otherwise there will be accusations of favouritism. Why have judges? Why exhibit lenience?

And what the hell's up with The Wise Man? As jenni and Libby have already said, get the hell over it, it was a year ago. The poor kid almost certainly didn't know what he was doing and you want him tried as an adult and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

I have to say, when people who are apparently ignorant of the rules do things that are slightly incorrect (say blitzing me in time trouble) I call the arbiter over, not because I want to be awarded the game, but because I want the arbiter to explain the rules to them and stop them doing it.

Rhubarb
10-03-2005, 01:46 AM
The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning
<...>

From the previous posts made here, there was an announcement by the arbiters at the start of the tournament about scoresheets etc. If a player chooses to not listen to the announcements, that is their fault.
This means the player has already received their warning about this matter, so in my opinion that only leaves loss of game. This is my interpretation of the laws of chess.My interpretation, gg, is that a warning must be made to the player after the alleged incident. If you want to count pre-game announcements as warnings then why not read the entire Laws of Chess before every bloody tournament and bugger anyone who should be so un-Wise (geddit?) as to be slightly ignorant.

eclectic
10-03-2005, 02:22 AM
Eclectic, normally I enjoy your posts but this is just ridiculous. It's like saying a judge can only apply the maximum possible sentence in every case otherwise there will be accusations of favouritism. Why have judges? Why exhibit lenience?


I'm sorry, kegless, :boohoo: ;)

I did try to short circuit things at post 56 but you'd take the legal analogy there too by saying we do have courts of appeal.

:hand:

;)

eclectic

Garvinator
10-03-2005, 02:22 AM
My interpretation, gg, is that a warning must be made to the player after the alleged incident. If you want to count pre-game announcements as warnings then why not read the entire Laws of Chess before every bloody tournament and bugger anyone who should be so un-Wise (geddit?) as to be slightly ignorant.
yes i geddit, i am wise arent i :lol: and yes you are most likely right. :uhoh: hmm reading the whole laws of chess before the tournament begins, now there is an idea :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Alan Shore
10-03-2005, 03:58 AM
yes i geddit, i am wise arent i :lol: and yes you are most likely right. :uhoh: hmm reading the whole laws of chess before the tournament begins, now there is an idea :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Well after the outburst of that git who showed up tonight at UQ... it might not be such a bad idea.

If that guy ever comes back I'm going to make him wish he hadn't (on the chessboard of course). Such juvenile behaviour...

ursogr8
10-03-2005, 07:29 AM
It seems that everyone cant seem to manage debating the same topic, or maybe I just consider one issue more important than the other.

There are two issues here:

1) The scoresheet incident
2) The make up of the appeals committee

On point 1: the relevant rule states:

Article 12: The conduct of the players

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

12.2 During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard.
The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offer of a draw, and matters relating to a claim.

12.6 Infraction of any part of the Articles 12.1 to 12.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.

13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning
2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4. declaring the game to be lost,
5. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
6. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
7. expulsion from the event.

As you can see from these rules, the only penalties that are relevant in this situation are warning or loss of game. From the previous posts made here, there was an announcement by the arbiters at the start of the tournament about scoresheets etc. If a player chooses to not listen to the announcements, that is their fault.

This means the player has already received their warning about this matter, so in my opinion that only leaves loss of game. This is my interpretation of the laws of chess.

Point 2- The appeals committee.

From what I have seen at major tournaments, normally the appeals committee is made up of five people from DIFFERENT states. Normally three people would then be in judgement of the appeal, but are not from the states of the players involved in the appeal.

In this case that would mean that there should not have been anyone from NSW or ACT on the three person appeals committee. This would mean that both Gary Lane and Jenni Oliver should not have been on the appeals committee. I find it hard to believe that 2 other people not from NSW or ACT could not be found at a tournament that has approx 250 ppl attending.
gg''

Thanks for doing all that...it brought some structure back to the debate...even if you drew the wrong conclusion as to 'warning', as kegless points out.

In your reading was there any structure about what can be appealed against?
For example.........it seems in this case the DOP(s) ruled that the junior had infringed the rule. So, I presume TWM can't appeal against that DOP(s) ruling, because it was his contention that a rule had been infringed, and the DOP(s) agreed.
Can TWM appeal against the DOP(s) allocation of a particular penalty?


starter

jenni
10-03-2005, 08:55 AM
I find it hard to believe that 2 other people not from NSW or ACT could not be found at a tournament that has approx 250 ppl attending.

The appeal was held immediately and the game had only been going a short while - that is how Wiseman was able to start a new game. Thus most people were still playing - Gary Lane's opponent hadn't shown up, which is why he was available. Everyone else who was around, was either a parent and a non-chess player, or ACT people of one sort or another.

jenni
10-03-2005, 09:04 AM
I have to say, when people who are apparently ignorant of the rules do things that are slightly incorrect (say blitzing me in time trouble) I call the arbiter over, not because I want to be awarded the game, but because I want the arbiter to explain the rules to them and stop them doing it.

This is a very sensible and productive approach. Everyone benefits. We assume that just because a person is playing in a tournament they have all the knowledge of ethics and behaviour, but they don't.

We use our junior tournaments as a training ground for behaviour. e.g. at the Autumn Junior weekender a 17 year old playing in his first rated tournament munched an apple very loudly during his game. I talked to him afterwards and explained that eating was bad chess manners. A little bit of chocolate or a lolly, but definitely not apples. I kept it light-hearted so as not to embarrass him.

However there are many people who start playing as adults or teenagers and they might know the moves of the games, or even have bought some books and learnt openings, but have no idea of all the peripheral things.

arosar
10-03-2005, 09:07 AM
Too much talk of bad experience. We're going for a big event OK. Feel good and be happy. Not too much bad feeling. I can't wait. Some blokes from our Hyde Park Chess Club are coming down for an invasion.

Btw, I was talking to that bloke, GM Roland Schmaltz, on playchess and asked him if he's going down. He said, no - too expensive and he's just bought some stuff for his apartment in Brissy. How sad is that?

AR

Ian Rout
10-03-2005, 09:18 AM
Whatever else ggray might be accused of on these boards, consistency is not one of them. On his Point 1 he argues for an almost fanatically restrictive reading of the rules, then on Point 2 argues for decisions to be made on the basis of what is "normal".

Not only is his interpretation of the rules somewhat dodgy anyway as observed by kegless, but he has omitted to mention the Preface to the Laws of Chess which says (my bolding):

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.

Which is sensible when you think about it. We all have played inexperienced players (not only juniors) who don't know some of the rules, but if there is a breach we either ignore it, correct them or have the arbiter ask them to stop. We don't carry on a lunatic and try to get ourselves awarded a free point without playing. Common sense needs to be used when applying rules suited to grandmaster tournaments to 1100-rated players in their first event.

If we were to follow the gray/wise philosophy then a fair proportion of games would end in forfeits under rule 12.4 which is unknown to many players, just like the scoresheet rule was in this instance.

The_Wise_Man
10-03-2005, 09:39 AM
is for the game to be forfeited...

A mobile phone rings and it is an immediate loss of game but look up moves in your scorebook and you get a slap on the wrist... where is the justice...

I was forced into playing a game with a cheat.... immediately after he commited the offence...

I even considered withdrawing from the tournament in protest but was talked out of it by Charles Z and Lee.

Please consider that I have not named the junior in any of my posts.
So the junior is safe from being exposed in public.


I will be playing in U2000 to avoid such juniors in the future.

shaun
10-03-2005, 09:57 AM
I was forced into playing a game with a cheat.... immediately after he commited the offence...


The arbiters did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
The appeals committee did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
So why do you continue to use this term as fact, when clearly it is not?

antichrist
10-03-2005, 10:17 AM
LIsten Wise Man
Ed Agulto in the SEC a few years ago when we had a high-powered disputes committee I thought got a very raw deal, it actually cost him the comp.

In time trouble, he came 20 mins late, he accidentally knocked a few pieces over, including his opponents (that German guy Getty I think was his name).

Getty chose to replace the pieces when Agulto should have done so, but having done so I consider the responsibility was on Getty to get them correct.

Anyway further down the track when Agulto was queening a pawn all of a sudden Getty claims another bishop should be on the board.

Well on the so say of one observer the bishop goes back on, there was another complication of Getty taking the other bishop off beforehand in anticipation of taking the new queen or something.

The result was that Getty got two bishops back on the board in spite of the moves not being written down and in spite of him setting the board up incorrectly.

Finally result is that Agulto loses costing him the lead or equal first, or eventual first.

Agulto took this all in his stride and did not complain. Such a noble guy I thought as he lost a couple of hundred of bucks out of it. As well as the first guy to win this comp twice.

Agulto knew all the disputes committee well but this was of no help, Getty knew nobody. So don't assume favouritism due to closeness.

And in your case you probably would not have won anything anyway.

And AR is so different to the gentle Agulto and Capilitan but is in the backwaters. cop that AR!

jenni
10-03-2005, 10:26 AM
The arbiters did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
The appeals committee did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
So why do you continue to use this term as fact, when clearly it is not?

My kids want to sue him. :) In fact at dinner last night I found myself defending wiseman's right to freedom of speech, as my whole family wanted me to use my moderator's powers, on the grounds that he was libelling not only a decent kid, but all Canberra Juniors.

I tell you what wiseman if you want to play the under 1600, I promise I will counsel every junior who plays you and warn them not to put a foot wrong. Not of course that I need to do this, as I know no-one cheats, but if it makes you feel better I am happy to do it.

Playing in the under 2000 probably won't be much fun for you.

arosar
10-03-2005, 10:35 AM
And AR is so different to the gentle Agulto and Capilitan but is in the backwaters. cop that AR!

Listen you stupid habib - stay out of my way.

AR

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 10:47 AM
It seems that everyone cant seem to manage debating the same topic, or maybe I just consider one issue more important than the other.

There are two issues here:

1) The scoresheet incident
2) The make up of the appeals committee

On point 1: the relevant rule states:

Article 12: The conduct of the players

12.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.

12.2 During play the players are forbidden to make use of any notes, sources of information, advice, or to analyse on another chessboard.
The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offer of a draw, and matters relating to a claim.

12.6 Infraction of any part of the Articles 12.1 to 12.5 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.

13.4

The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

1. warning
2. increasing the remaining time of the opponent,
3. reducing the remaining time of the offending player,
4. declaring the game to be lost,
5. reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,
6. increasing the points scored in a game by the opponent to the maximum available for that game,
7. expulsion from the event.

As you can see from these rules, the only penalties that are relevant in this situation are warning or loss of game.Your assumption is incorrect.
In the situation under discussion items 2 and 3 are also possible. The arbiter may decide to warn the junior and at the same time increase the time of wiseman as the juniors behaviour has disturbed wiseman.
Equally given the description earlier in the thread that witnesses described wiseman as going beserk then perhaps the junior recieves a warning for using his scorebook and wiseman receives a warning for disrupotive behaviour and items 2 and 3 are not applied to either player.


From the previous posts made here, there was an announcement by the arbiters at the start of the tournament about scoresheets etc. If a player chooses to not listen to the announcements, that is their fault.

This means the player has already received their warning about this matter, so in my opinion that only leaves loss of game. This is my interpretation of the laws of chess.Again this is incorrect.
A tournament announcement by the arbiter should not be construed as the arbiter having previously issued a warning.
Also their is nothing in the rules prohibting the arbiter issuing multiple warnings.

Point 2- The appeals committee.

From what I have seen at major tournaments, normally the appeals committee is made up of five people from DIFFERENT states. Normally three people would then be in judgement of the appeal, but are not from the states of the players involved in the appeal.Can you name the tournaments where you have seen this done.

In this case that would mean that there should not have been anyone from NSW or ACT on the three person appeals committee. This would mean that both Gary Lane and Jenni Oliver should not have been on the appeals committee. I find it hard to believe that 2 other people not from NSW or ACT could not be found at a tournament that has approx 250 ppl attending.There is no valid reason that the Appeals Committee as formed should be considered invalid. Just because somone wishes to claim that a person has some sort of bias, does not make it so.
If either player was unhappy with those people on the appeals committee they should have raised any concerns prior to the appeals committee being asked to deliberate. If the concern was deemed unsupportable then the appointed appeals committee should proceed.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 11:00 AM
is for the game to be forfeited...
Totally incorrect. Statements like this make a mockery of your user name here.


A mobile phone rings and it is an immediate loss of game but look up moves in your scorebook and you get a slap on the wrist... where is the justice...You pointed out in your first post on this that it happened around move 5. There appears to be no evidence that the junior was actually attempting to use his book to determine what moves to make, but to determine the ECO code.


I was forced into playing a game with a cheat.... immediately after he commited the offence... No, you were required to play a game with a child who did not know that his behaviour was not allowed. That doesnt make him a cheat. It makes him uninformed.


I even considered withdrawing from the tournament in protest but was talked out of it by Charles Z and Lee. :whistle:


Please consider that I have not named the junior in any of my posts.
So the junior is safe from being exposed in public.Incorrect.
It is fairly easy from the published crosstables to narrow it down to a couple of possible candidates.


I will be playing in U2000 to avoid such juniors in the future.You are deluding yourself if you think this will mean you avoid juniors. Not all juniors are U1600. On top of that I have seen adults commit far worse offences that a junior looking up his scorebook to find an ECO code.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 11:10 AM
In your reading was there any structure about what can be appealed against?
For example.........it seems in this case the DOP(s) ruled that the junior had infringed the rule. So, I presume TWM can't appeal against that DOP(s) ruling, because it was his contention that a rule had been infringed, and the DOP(s) agreed.
Can TWM appeal against the DOP(s) allocation of a particular penalty?He can appeal.
The situation is really no different to one where an arbiter might forfeit a player for a breach of the rules. The player can obviously appeal. His grounds might be that the penalty is excessive.
In TWM's case his grounds would be that the arbiters decision/penalty is inadequate.
Clearly the arbiters and appeals committee did not agree with TWM.

antichrist
10-03-2005, 11:37 AM
Bill,
Taking at face value my post re Agulto and SEC can you comment please.

I thought if a player takes it on himself to set up pieces and gets it wrong then cannot complain later further down the track, esp. when moves are not even written down as in last 5 mins.

thanks in anticipi

pax
10-03-2005, 11:52 AM
Please consider that I have not named the junior in any of my posts.
So the junior is safe from being exposed in public.

In fact it is very easy to identify both participants with 5 minutes or so of web searching. If your comments are indeed defamatory, then the fact you have not named the person is not a defence.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Bill,
Taking at face value my post re Agulto and SEC can you comment please.

I thought if a player takes it on himself to set up pieces and gets it wrong then cannot complain later further down the track, esp. when moves are not even written down as in last 5 mins.

thanks in anticipiNormally Article 7.5 would be relevant which says:

If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be identified, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.

However since this game was played under rapid rules then Article B5 (b) is takes precedence and it says:

The player loses the right to claim according to Articles 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5 (Irregularites, illegal moves) once he has touched a piece according to Article 4.3.

Therefore taking what you say at face value I would believe that the player had no right according to the rules to place the bishop(s) on the board.

Garvinator
10-03-2005, 12:16 PM
Can you name the tournaments where you have seen this done.
sure no prob. Australian Open, Australian Juniors. Have been told that this is the standard way it has been done.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 12:36 PM
sure no prob. Australian Open, Australian Juniors. Have been told that this is the standard way it has been done.It may or may not be standard as the format in ACF events of the procedure for settling disputes during the tournament is not explicitly spelt out but is part of the bid requirements. The procedure is subject to ACF Council approval.

Even so Doeberl is not an ACF event and as such the organisers can determine the structure of the Appeals Commitee as they see fit.
Unless demonstrable bias can be shown then there is no requirement that the members of the appeals committee be from different states to the players.
After all NSW law courts dont use QLD citiizens for jury duty.

eclectic
10-03-2005, 12:51 PM
It may or may not be standard as the format in ACF events of the procedure for settling disputes during the tournament is not explicitly spelt out but is part of the bid requirements. The procedure is subject to ACF Council approval.

Even so Doeberl is not an ACF event and as such the organisers can determine the structure of the Appeals Commitee as they see fit.
Unless demonstrable bias can be shown then there is no requirement that the members of the appeals committee be from different states to the players.
After all NSW law courts dont use QLD citiizens for jury duty.

I would have thought that if an event was to be FIDE rated (does not of course apply to event in which dispute took place) it would be subject to a set of procedures regarding appeals.\as laid out by FIDE.

eclectic

shaun
10-03-2005, 12:57 PM
sure no prob. Australian Open, Australian Juniors. Have been told that this is the standard way it has been done.

Then you may have been mis-informed, at least where weekend events are concerned.
The usual practice (ie in every weekend tournament I have DOP'd or attended as a player) is for a 3 person panel to be appointed. Sometimes this panel is chosen at the start of the event, sometimes it is organised as the need arises. Indeed the conventional wisdom is to appoint a panel as required as a pre-appointed panel usually has someone on it who has a vested interest in the case (ay least according to Rueben!).
The only requirements to be on an appeals panel is a) no direct conflict of interest and b) a reasonable understanding of the rules. Nothing about which states people are from or how many each state can provide.
Of course this may be different for ACF championship events but a quick perusal of the ACF by-laws didn't reveal any regulations on this matter at all, although in my haste I may have missed it.

arosar
10-03-2005, 01:01 PM
This comment about panel members having to come from other states is stupid. It assumes that people act corruptly in favour of a mate. Why not assume the opposite: that people will act fairly - which is quite often the case?

AR

Garvinator
10-03-2005, 01:10 PM
On this note I am leaving this and most other debates as I am more and more seeing why australian chess will always remain in the gutter.

I dont want to be part of this australian chess scene which is so heavily divided by small mindness and state politicing. I am reviewing everything I do regarding australian chess roles.

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 01:11 PM
I would have thought that if an event was to be FIDE rated (does not of course apply to event in which dispute took place) it would be subject to a set of procedures regarding appeals.\as laid out by FIDE.Your assumption is incorrect.
FIDE have no regulations governing the rating of an event and an appeals process. In fact they have no regulations governing awarding of titles from a FIDE event and appeals.

eclectic
10-03-2005, 01:12 PM
On this note I am leaving this and most other debates as I am more and more seeing why australian chess will always remain in the gutter.

I dont want to be part of this australian chess scene which is so heavily divided by small mindness and state politicing. I am reviewing everything I do regarding australian chess roles.

if you do that you will get your invisibility back!!

;)

eclectic

jenni
10-03-2005, 01:13 PM
This comment about panel members having to come from other states is stupid. It assumes that people act corruptly in favour of a mate. Why not assume the opposite: that people will act fairly - which is quite often the case?

AR

One of the more sensible comments in this debate......

ursogr8
10-03-2005, 01:37 PM
He can appeal.
The situation is really no different to one where an arbiter might forfeit a player for a breach of the rules. The player can obviously appeal. His grounds might be that the penalty is excessive.
In TWM's case his grounds would be that the arbiters decision/penalty is inadequate.
Clearly the arbiters and appeals committee did not agree with TWM.

tks Bill

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 01:45 PM
One of the more sensible comments in this debate......Yes, my mate AR has been known to be sensible at times. ;)

The_Wise_Man
10-03-2005, 02:15 PM
The arbiters did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
The appeals committee did not consider your opponent a cheat, or that he cheated.
So why do you continue to use this term as fact, when clearly it is not?

Shaun
Maybe because the fact that the junior admitted to the offence of looking for the exact Opening in his scorebook....

Bill Gletsos
10-03-2005, 02:23 PM
Shaun
Maybe because the fact that the junior admitted to the offence of looking for the exact Opening in his scorebook....Yes, but all evidence points to the reason he did this was to find the ECO code. That doesnt make him a cheat, only young and naive.

shaun
10-03-2005, 02:32 PM
Shaun
Maybe because the fact that the junior admitted to the offence of looking for the exact Opening in his scorebook....

which in the judgment of the Arbiters and the appeals committee still did not make him a cheat.

Rhubarb
10-03-2005, 02:46 PM
On this note I am leaving this and most other debates as I am more and more seeing why australian chess will always remain in the gutter.

I dont want to be part of this australian chess scene which is so heavily divided by small mindness and state politicing. I am reviewing everything I do regarding australian chess roles.Hi gg,

I can see why you're pissed off. You do a lot of work, and on this bb at least, you're more likely to get derision than encouragement. It may be that you tried to do too much too soon. Certainly taking on this corner of cyberspace for Mt. Buller was more than should have been expected.

But people respect you for having a go and being part of what was in the end a respectable Australian Open.

People respect you even more for all the work you've done in picking up the ball for the 2004 GP. If you now complete this task and are on the ball for this year's GP, your legendary status is assured.

At least hang around here. You're a fixture and we love youse man.

Greg

antichrist
10-03-2005, 03:22 PM
Reply to post 84

Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
Bill,
Taking at face value my post re Agulto and SEC can you comment please.

I thought if a player takes it on himself to set up pieces and gets it wrong then cannot complain later further down the track, esp. when moves are not even written down as in last 5 mins.

thanks in anticipi

BG
Normally Article 7.5 would be relevant which says:

Quote:
If during a game it is found that pieces have been displaced from their squares, the position before the irregularity shall be re-instated. If the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be identified, the game shall continue from the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall be adjusted according to Article 6.14. The game shall then continue from this re-instated position.

However since this game was played under rapid rules then Article B5 (b) is takes precedence and it says:

Quote:
The player loses the right to claim according to Articles 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5 (Irregularites, illegal moves) once he has touched a piece according to Article 4.3.

Therefore taking what you say at face value I would believe that the player had no right according to the rules to place the bishop(s) on the board

AC
The time limit is one hour each per player, is that rapid rules? Or because in last 5 mins of game?

If moves not recorded and no witness and no agreement on position?

If moves not recorded is one witness but lack agreement with both players?
Assume up to disputes committee?

The_Wise_Man
10-03-2005, 03:57 PM
My kids want to sue him. :) In fact at dinner last night I found myself defending wiseman's right to freedom of speech, as my whole family wanted me to use my moderator's powers, on the grounds that he was libelling not only a decent kid, but all Canberra Juniors.

I tell you what wiseman if you want to play the under 1600, I promise I will counsel every junior who plays you and warn them not to put a foot wrong. Not of course that I need to do this, as I know no-one cheats, but if it makes you feel better I am happy to do it.

Playing in the under 2000 probably won't be much fun for you.

Jenni.... Thanks for defending my right to free speech....
I have nothing against juniors.... justice is what I am after...
They often say a group of people can be labelled from one individual in the group. So Canberra juniors get unfairly implicated by the actions of an individual....

Can I ask why playing in the U2000, would be no fun for me?

Wise

eclectic
10-03-2005, 04:02 PM
Jenni.... Thanks for defending my right to free speech....
I have nothing against juniors.... justice is what I am after...
They often say a group of people can be labelled from one individual in the group. So Canberra juniors get unfairly implicated by the actions of an individual....

Can I ask why playing in the U2000, would be no fun for me?

Wise

will playing in either section be fun for you if one year after the incident in question you appear to be still holding a grudge?

get over it!
best of luck!

eclectic

The_Wise_Man
10-03-2005, 04:29 PM
1 year is a short time.... I have grievances from 10 years ago...

I will not mention a word once I get down to Canberra.... thats a promise...

I will have to concentrate on the games at hand....

Wise

jenni
10-03-2005, 04:32 PM
Jenni.... Thanks for defending my right to free speech....
I have nothing against juniors.... justice is what I am after...
They often say a group of people can be labelled from one individual in the group. So Canberra juniors get unfairly implicated by the actions of an individual....



Which of course is the problem about making statement like Canberra Juniors (esp under 1400) cheat.

It is reasonable to have a go at the junior involved, even if the language you use is emotive and over the top. To then extrapolate from there and say Canberra Juniors cheat is pretty disgusting from an adult.




Can I ask why playing in the U2000, would be no fun for me?

Wise

Just thinking of Starters competitive index. Numerous people have told me it is more fun to play in a comp when you are in the top half, rather than right at the bottom (although lots of masochistic juniors do it in their never ending quest for better experience and rating points).

I would have thought playing in the minor and competing to win it would be more fun, than playing the major as one of the bottom seeds.

Don_Harrison
10-03-2005, 04:37 PM
Can I ask why playing in the U2000, would be no fun for me?

Just hazarding a guess here but I think jenni was inferring that in the U2000 you could come up against a number of "juniors", which may well include a number of Canberra juniors.

Enjoy.

Ian Rout
10-03-2005, 04:49 PM
Just hazarding a guess here but I think jenni was inferring that in the U2000 you could come up against a number of "juniors", which may well include a number of Canberra juniors.

Possibly not. Last year there were by my count two or three ACT juniors in the Major compared to 25 in the Minor.

Some of those 25 will move up this year but on the other hand they will be replaced.

They made up seven of the 22 who scored more than 4 points in the Minor which is only proportional to their numbers in the event, so (for most people) there's nothing to be frightened of.

Don_Harrison
10-03-2005, 05:19 PM
Well blow me down, there goes my theory. I should, but never will, try not to second guess. Still, I don't see how adults can entirely avoid playing juniors.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to why some "big people" expect every individual in the younger brigade to know all the rules of chess. Would have thought that adults would be happy to guide, assist and encourage juniors, especially those with little experience in top line competitions, and gently inform.

However, I suppose a degree of pride comes in to it. Must be tough to have a 12 year old thrash the living daylights out of you - a situation which is not entirely unknown to me. :( :lol:

jenni
10-03-2005, 06:19 PM
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why some "big people" expect every individual in the younger brigade to know all the rules of chess. Would have thought that adults would be happy to guide, assist and encourage juniors, especially those with little experience in top line competitions, and gently inform.

However, I suppose a degree of pride comes in to it. Must be tough to have a 12 year old thrash the living daylights out of you - a situation which is not entirely unknown to me. :( :lol:


Yes I think this is the problem. In most other sports adults don't play kids, so they can afford to be nurturing and do things for the next generation. In chess you have little 7 year olds beating adults. Many adults are very generous with their time and support, but you do get a segment that just don't like playing kids and find it stressful.

I would have no problem with adults who don't like juniors around, because they are noisy, bad mannered and irritating (many of them are). However I find it amazing that some have such egos on the line that they dislike juniors merely because they are better.

I have to admit juniors scare me - I am much happier playing another adult (and usually play a better game). Juniors scare me witless and I know I am going to lose (thus probably I do). However it doesn't worry me - I just enjoy playing and don't care if I lose.

Grendel
10-03-2005, 06:40 PM
i think in any sport you must be a sport. anything less sucks :evil:

DoroPhil
10-03-2005, 09:05 PM
This is ridiculous.

Rules are written for people who can play chess, not for u/1600 tournaments.

Wise_Man should've known better seeing how he's old and all that.

The arbiter/ appeals commitee should've told him to get over it at once, thus showing that such nonsense is not tolerated.

Carrying on about this after a year... That's just sad... Dude, you were on 2/4 in the minor - you were clearly going nowhere either way...

The real question would be: Why does the chess community as a whole create such an environment that people like Mr. Wise_Man believe that the aforementioned behaviour is acceptable?

antichrist
10-03-2005, 09:55 PM
Bill,
Does my post 100 deserve a reply? thanks

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2005, 03:08 AM
This beatup by "Wise Man" is a total joke. If the appeals committee made one mistake in this instance it was giving him his deposit back. I would very certainly not have done so. Frankly I'm in favour of jacking up deposits for appeals to at least $50 to discourage appeals like this.

The DOP's initial decision was an excellent one. They addressed the problem, prevented its recurrence and applied a warning. I would have also applied a time penalty but the DOP's decision is clearly within the bounds of reasonableness.

The player definitely broke the rules and needs to learn not to do so again. However there is a massive difference between unintentionally breaching the rules (in ignorance) and intentionally doing so (in order to cheat). By calling the player a cheat, the spuriously-named "Wise Man" is directly implying the latter, for which he has no evidence whatsoever. Indeed I would have moderated his "cheat" calls for legal reasons had I any reason to believe any thinking person would take them seriously. I will still remove this thread if the child or their parents asks me to, it's a disgrace.

As pax points out, Unwise Man's claim that not naming the player gets him off the hook is ridiculous. I would further say that I consider such a claim to be cowardly; he should at least recognise that the player can be recognised from the incident and their reputation affected.

When an appeals committee considers a decision they should only overturn it if they consider it to be clearly wrong. If the original arbiter's decision is considered defensible it should be maintained, the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that the decision was wrong. The appeal should not be granted just because a decision is contentious.

To give an example, I was once on an appeal committee in a case where we thought that, confronted with the same situation the original DOP had confronted, there were a couple of reasonable options. Having time to examine the case in detail, we really could not make up our minds which of these options we preferred, but one of them was the decision the original DOP had made in the heat of the moment. As that decision was clearly one of the reasonable options we upheld it and rejected the appeal. TWM's appeal had not a snowflake's chance in hell of success because the original DOP's decision was totally defensible whether one agreed with it or not.

Although one of the appeal committee told TWM that he should have been happy for the junior to try to book up, that does not necessarily mean this was one of the appeal committee's reasons for making their decision. TWM's claim that the appeal committee ignored the nature of the offence is unsubstantiated and ridiculous and I would strongly advise him to salvage something from the wreck by withdrawing it. The appeals committee were fully entitled to take the inexperience of the player into account in their decision because inexperienced players are far more likely to breach the rules in error rather than by cheating.

Garvin's concerns about the state-by-state makeup of the appeals committee also strike me as overblown. His comment:


I dont want to be part of this australian chess scene which is so heavily divided by small mindness and state politicing. I am reviewing everything I do regarding australian chess roles.

is a bit odd because in this case he was the one who introduced the issue of "state politicing" into the debate in a case where there was no evidence that same-state issues had caused bias or would be likely to cause bias. In my view, dragging the state issue into issues where its influence is not apparent can be just as destructive as the influence of the state issue itself, but perhaps that's a matter for some other thread.

In small chess communities like Tassie there's sometimes a need to go interstate to someone who really feels like they can be neutral. But the ACT is swarming with juniors and it's ridiculous to think that someone like Jenni, who probably has to deal with internal disputes involving such juniors pretty often, is going to have a strong personal bias in favour of each and every one of them. I'd be more concerned about the experience of the panel than which state they were from.

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 07:21 AM
Good post, Kevin. I was thinking of going through this whole thread so as to provide a summary of the issue as I saw them but I don't think I need to now.

I think the collective opinion of the community here is that in this specific circumstance the DOP decision was correct, the appeal committee was correct ni upholding it, (I think I would have returned the $20 btw) and ironically named The Wise Man should stop making childish accusations and get over it.

He certainly does himself no favours by continuing to desperately cling to his untenuous position.

ursogr8
11-03-2005, 07:36 AM
Good post, Kevin. I was thinking of going through this whole thread so as to provide a summary of the issue as I saw them but I don't think I need to now.

I think the collective opinion of the community here is that in this specific circumstance the DOP decision was correct, the appeal committee was correct in upholding it, (I think I would have returned the $20 btw) and ironically named The Wise Man should stop making childish accusations and get over it.

He certainly does himself no favours by continuing to desperately cling to his untenuous position.

I second Barry's commendation, and I have pressed the button to add to Kevin's reputation for his particular post.

starter

arosar
11-03-2005, 08:47 AM
He certainly does himself no favours by continuing to desperately cling to his untenuous position.

You mean tenuous - as in indefensible, or 'on thin ice'?

AR

ursogr8
11-03-2005, 08:50 AM
^
Or perhaps Baz meant
untenable
?

The_Wise_Man
11-03-2005, 10:02 AM
From:
Playing in the U2000


to avoid as many under-rated juniors as possible....
(including the ones that cheat and then are given favourable treatment by the organisers....)

The comment that re-ignited things.... and brought some real life back into the bulletin board.... was made in passing....

There are two points:
1. Under-rated juniors are more likely to enter the U1600.
2. Juniors who cheat (both knowingly and unknowingly, inexperienced or experienced but nevertheless cheat) are more likely to enter the U1600.

Calling this player a cheat is my opinion. And in expressing my opinion I have the right of free speech. Other people may have other opinions, I respect that... I am not forcing anyone else to call this player a cheat.
Everyone has some player in some game that they believe has acted dishonestly or cheated in their game. If everyone thinks hard enough, I think you can at least think of one.... This junior is my one... and no matter what anyone says, however many days pass I will always consider that the junior cheated on that very day last year.

Wise

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2005, 10:17 AM
Free speech is one thing, however labelling someone a cheat when they are clearly not isnt free speech.
Continuing calling him a cheat does you absolutely no favours.

Cheat: verb
transitive senses
1 : to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud
2 : to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice
3 : to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting <cheat death>
intransitive senses
1 a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly (as at cards or on an examination)
2 : to be sexually unfaithful -- usually used with on

There is no evidence that the junior acted dishonestly.

As such the word cheat is inapplicable.

arosar
11-03-2005, 10:22 AM
Calling this player a cheat is my opinion. And in expressing my opinion I have the right of free speech. Other people may have other opinions, I respect that... I am not forcing anyone else to call this player a cheat.

You do have the right to free speech but certainly not the right to do harm. You're clearly misrepresenting the child by insisting on labelling him a 'cheat'. In the opinion of others, certainly mine, you are doing this child harm. He was inexperienced and naive. That he apparently did what caused you so much trauma right smack in front of you is proof that he did't cheat or intended to cheat. 'Cheating', you see, implies an act involving some degree of subterfuge.


Everyone has some player in some game that they believe has acted dishonestly or cheated in their game. If everyone thinks hard enough, I think you can at least think of one.... This junior is my one... and no matter what anyone says, however many days pass I will always consider that the junior cheated on that very day last year.

Perhaps. But everyone else, apparently, has the adult capacity to move on.

I wasn't gonna say anything man, for I do recall having a drink with you after. I could see your trauma. But maaate...it's fkn 12 months ago and he was just a kid!

AR

antichrist
11-03-2005, 11:28 AM
Bill
my post 100

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2005, 11:43 AM
The time limit is one hour each per player, is that rapid rules? Or because in last 5 mins of game?G60 is rapid rules.

If moves not recorded and no witness and no agreement on position?Irrelevant under article B5. The player lost the right to claim.

If moves not recorded is one witness but lack agreement with both players?The arbiter has to determine the accuracy of the witness. e.g does he know what he is talking about, does he have any bias. The arbiter does not have to accept the witness's testimony.

Assume up to disputes committee?Only if one of the players disputes the arbiters decision.

antichrist
11-03-2005, 11:54 AM
G60 is rapid rules.
Irrelevant under article B5. The player lost the right to claim.
The arbiter has to determine the accuracy of the witness. e.g does he know what he is talking about, does he have any bias. The arbiter does not have to accept the witness's testimony.
Only if one of the players disputes the arbiters decision.

Well I will be blown. At face value this "hopeless" player got it right over the experts. Thanks Bill.

Kegless, those coaching lessons are still on offer.

Rhubarb
11-03-2005, 02:33 PM
Well I will be blown. At face value this "hopeless" player got it right over the experts. Thanks Bill.

Kegless, those coaching lessons are still on offer.I assume you're referring to the Fell-Escribano incident again.
a) I did not describe the witness as "hopeless", and I did not know the witness was you. All I said was the arbiter didn't accept the witness's testimony.
b) Locution du jour: Get over it.

antichrist
11-03-2005, 02:50 PM
I assume you're referring to the Fell-Escribano incident again.
a) I did not describe the witness as "hopeless", and I did not know the witness was you. All I said was the arbiter didn't accept the witness's testimony.
b) Locution du jour: Get over it.

No, it refers to posts 76 and 100 re SEC affair when FF and BK made what I thought was a very unfair decision.

AA

Rhubarb
11-03-2005, 03:20 PM
No, it refers to posts 76 and 100 re SEC affair when FF and BK made what I thought was a very unfair decision. Since you were talking about arbiters and witnesses and dragged me into the conversation, I naturally assumed you were talking about the Fell-Escribano incident. Otherwise, what on Earth has it do with me?

Just to explain further, I didn't actually read #100. It looked more trouble than it was worth to figure out who was saying what - the online equivalent of a retard's finger painting. In your last post you actually get the quote function right, but we've seen these false dawns before. As Bill pointed out once, this occasionally happens due to pure dumb luck.

Bill Gletsos
11-03-2005, 03:34 PM
Well I will be blown. At face value this "hopeless" player got it right over the experts.Yes, but perhaps more by good luck than for the right reasons. As such your "getting it right" doesnt mean anyone has confidence in you being fortunate enough to get it right in future.

Kerry Stead
11-03-2005, 03:35 PM
Just to explain further, I didn't actually read #100. It looked more trouble than it was worth to figure out who was saying what - the online equivalent of a retard's finger painting. In your last post you actually get the quote function right, but we've seen these false dawns before. As Bill pointed out once, this occasionally happens due to pure dumb luck.

Greg, you're a funny one sometimes! :lol:
Want to try stand-up on the Footy Show? Couldn't be much worse than Craig McLaughlin ... :uhoh:

arosar
11-03-2005, 03:50 PM
This is what happens when you converse wth Peter. You go into headspins just figuring out what he's bloody saying.

You should see him trying to explain the Caro-Kann to his student. The poor kid sits there like a stunned mullet.

AR

Rhubarb
11-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Greg, you're a funny one sometimes! :lol:
Want to try stand-up on the Footy Show? Couldn't be much worse than Craig McLaughlin ... :uhoh: :D Kezza, I don't know whether to be insulted or complimented that you think I belong with those buffoons.

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 04:09 PM
You mean tenuous - as in indefensible, or 'on thin ice'?

Sorry, my bad. Starter is right. I got confused with with the word tenuous but meant untenable.

antichrist
11-03-2005, 05:29 PM
This is what happens when you converse wth Peter. You go into headspins just figuring out what he's bloody saying.

You should see him trying to explain the Caro-Kann to his student. The poor kid sits there like a stunned mullet.

AR


AR
I will have you know something. As you know that student already played the Caro-Kann and held up against you pretty well. (actually I think your rating was higher then maybe). He had been taught it by other coaches.

All the other students I had taught the Scicilian especially for the occasion. They not having any other coaches just soaked it up, accepted it and played it. "Your" student asked if could play Caro-Kann. Me not wanting to be too bossy and respecting him as a player said "okay"

Again the "hopeless" coach came out on top. Who was the only person to lose their game when playing Black - that guy who you taught playing Caro-Kann. I should cut your so-&-sos out!

Later his mother went mad because he did not follow my advice. None of the opposing team had a clue how to play the Scicilian. (maybe my students couldn't either but that is irrelevant)

I put AA on that post to Kegless, it meant Apology Accepted, I will include it below as well.

Kegless, now you can understand why I get a big head.

AA

edited: I just notice that you said that I tried to explain Caro-Kann to him, I never did, I know nothing about it. The only thing I know about it is that I don't like it for I think it does/can have a slight weakness (maybe for juniors), and that was the exact "weakness" which he floundered on.

The other boys soaked up the Scicilian quite alright so could not have been me.

antichrist
11-03-2005, 05:43 PM
Since you were talking about arbiters and witnesses and dragged me into the conversation, I naturally assumed you were talking about the Fell-Escribano incident. Otherwise, what on Earth has it do with me?

Just to explain further, I didn't actually read #100. It looked more trouble than it was worth to figure out who was saying what - the online equivalent of a retard's finger painting. In your last post you actually get the quote function right, but we've seen these false dawns before. As Bill pointed out once, this occasionally happens due to pure dumb luck.

I only referred to you because the "experts" were FF and BK, who of course are Fred F. and Bob K. (did the job hundreds of times), and if I know better than them in arbiting I was joking that I was good enough to also coach you.
As Greenbottle would say "OOOOOOHHHHHH I see!".

AA

antichrist
11-03-2005, 05:54 PM
Yes, but perhaps more by good luck than for the right reasons. As such your "getting it right" doesnt mean anyone has confidence in you being fortunate enough to get it right in future.

Sorry BIll, You can't take any of the gloss off the "win". I am on a high mate. I know you will never admit I am worth of anything but we all know how many fathers think that of their boys.

I know you even rate me below Botha (remember that guy - how can we forget?) - this is of perpetual hurt to me and am developing permanent psychological problems of inadequancy due to your rejection.

ha ha ha

Don't mention the war Bill but Brissy followed me re having a comp at Easter and it is hotting up, I must admit I am trying to stir it. Another distraction from hitting the missus aye.

Well 20 mins ago I opened the BB and faced an over of beamers, I think they are over the boundary for sixes and I can go out now. thanks for the ride.

Kerry Stead
11-03-2005, 06:40 PM
:D Kezza, I don't know whether to be insulted or complimented that you think I belong with those buffoons.
Well they are in need of humour ... and you seem to be able to supply it on occasion ... so take it as a compliment!

Thunderspirit
11-03-2005, 06:55 PM
I find it difficult to believe that this thread has gone on for so long. I have a question for Wise (my good mate) : What's worse: Potentially letting one cheating incident go by, and the kid grows up and becomes a active member of the chess community, or forfiet him- and loose him for good?

I think most players have probably cheated once or twice in their lives. It's poor form but the majority do the right thing 99.9% of the time.

So Wise you"ve never cheated....