PDA

View Full Version : Doeberl Cup Arbiting Hypotheticals

shaun
29-03-2005, 07:10 AM
A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

Note: There are no right and wrong answers here, just happy and unhappy players.

eclectic
29-03-2005, 07:50 AM
A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

the clock has been stopped and play suspended so the piece can be touched

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

what do you mean the other player "insists"? who's the arbiter around here?

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

if the capturing piece's move is illegal and is touched first it must be made to make a legal move if the capturing and the captured piece were touched at the same time but the capturing piece cannot possibly capture with a legal move then the legality should defer to the captured piece which must be captured with any legal move possible by a piece which is able to capture

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

if you had not restarted the clock you might indicate you had just conducted a little test which "disproves" the player's previous claim ie his/her force of habit is the undoing

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?
i'll guess here - color preference

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

the same should go here as with wrong scoresheet results ... once posted the result stands

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

here's my guess ... player X to player Y: "there's only three ways this can end ... 1-0 , 1/2 1/2, 0-1 ..."

player Y: "hey! what's the arbiter writing on our scoresheets?"

player x and y (in unison): WHAT!! 0-0 ... collusion!!

shaun, you should put up a pic in belthasar's competition section!

won't the up floater possibly win on countback?

Note: There are no right and wrong answers here, just happy and unhappy players.

jay_vee
29-03-2005, 08:25 AM
A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

IMHO, when you touch a piece you lose the right to claim a draw. Not sure about that though. (Note to eclectic: the clock has not been stopped).

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

No, but I'd be much surprised if the players requested my presence in that case (i.e. they agree it's a draw)

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

This is actually covered in the rules (or was, I only have the 2001 edition here). If it's unclear, which piece was touched first, we assume it was the acting player's. Therefore, unless his opponent agrees with him, he needs to move the knight of his that he touched if it has any legal moves.

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

No.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

I have no idea. I blindly trust my pairing program (and mine actually is trustworthy :) ).

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

I never change published pairings. The result is changed of course, and if the easier pairings have helped a player, so be it, I can't help it.

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

That depends on what I think about the two in general. If I don't know them, or have a low opinion of them, I would consider the possibility that they are negotiating the distribution of the prizemoney, but really at that stage, there's nothing I can do about it anymore. If the two players on 5.5 where somewhat smart however, they would not allow such a conversation in private.

Trent Parker
29-03-2005, 09:29 AM
5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

I'll share my prize with ya if you resign :evil:

antichrist
29-03-2005, 09:32 AM
I'll share my prize with ya if you resign :evil:

chessnut, you should be an expert on all this after last weekend

Trent Parker
29-03-2005, 10:21 AM
chessnut, you should be an expert on all this after last weekend
Huh? i got my 4 points fairly. mated 2 of my opponents and beat levi descallar because his flag fell.

antichrist
29-03-2005, 10:23 AM
Huh? i got my 4 points fairly. mated 2 of my opponents and beat levi descallar because his flag fell.

we are off-topic here, but guillotine finishes can be fun

Oepty
29-03-2005, 11:31 AM
I am doing this off the top of my head.

A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

The first thing I would do is see if the opponent is aware that the draw claim is also a draw offer and see if the want to accept it. If the opponent does not want a draw then. I am not sure. It would be a case of quick where is that book of the laws of chess.

[QUOTE=shaun]
1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

I would declare it a draw as soon as the second player says he is happy with a draw because of the fact a draw claim is also a draw offer.

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

This a tough one. I think that I would rule that player must move the knight, unless there is a reason that I would disbelieve the opponent. This could include a bad track record of cheating or attempted cheating.

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

No, a player might capture pieces both ways quite regularly. To me it is absolutely no proof that they were lying previously.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

Top half against bottom half. Swiss Perfect does the opposite I believe.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

Assuming here you mean that the pairings have been completed and have been made public I don't think you can change the pairings. Little you can do about the easier field the player has played, unless you were absolutely sure that the entering of the incorrect result was attempt to cheat. If it was they should be kicked out of the tournament.

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

Well the prizes, but it would be very difficult to prove.

Scott

Garvinator
29-03-2005, 12:15 PM
1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?
I would say that it doesnt matter if he makes the move on the board or just writes it on the scoresheet and tells the arbiter that he intends to make the written move.

According to the laws of chess:

9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves)

1. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
2. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

ahh a common debate, especially with Charles ;) I believe it is top half vs bottom half.

I believe you dont have to go far into the pairing rules to find the reason:

A2. Order
For pairing purposes only, the players are ranked in order of, respectively

a) score
b) rating
c) FIDE-title (IGM-WGM-IM-WIM-FM-WFM-no title)
d) alphabetically (unless it has been previously stated that this criterion has been replaced by another one)
The order made before the first round (when all scores are obviously zero) is used to determine the pairing numbers: the highest one gets #1 etc.

Then the pairing rules go further to mentioning top half then bottom half. As you can see above, colours are not mentioned.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

I dont believe the pairings can be changed. As soon as pairings are announced, they become official and cant be changed.

F6. A pairing officially made public shall not be changed unless it violates the absolute pairing criteria (B1 and B2).

pax
29-03-2005, 12:19 PM
A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

Since the move is not complete until the clock is pressed, the player may claim a draw.

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

Don't understand the question. If player A claims the draw, it is a draw. If he completes the move without claiming, then player B may elect to claim the draw.

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

If both players agree that the captured piece was touched first, then it must be captured. If there is disagreement on which piece was touched first (and no witnesses), then I would probably go with the player who made the move (a player who moves a piece diagonally is probably just the sort of player who picks up the captured piece first).

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

As tempting as it is to reverse the decision, I think you have to stick by it once it is made.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

top vs bottom.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

Change the pairings unless games have started.

The player with the easier pairings is presumably the one who misreported the result. In this case the error was the fault of that player. I would probably apply a penalty for prize purposes (0.5 or 1 point depending on how significant you think the difference in draw may have been).

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

Is such a conversation away from the board permitted under the FIDE rules of chess?

If the arbiter notices this conversation, I suggest he eavesdrop. He might pick up some good home renovation tips.

Pax

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2005, 04:55 PM
A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?He lost the right to claim a draw as soon as he made the move on the board.

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?No.

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?With no witness to verify either players claim, I would apply Article 4.3 (c)
If it is unclear, whether the player's own piece or his opponent's was touched first, the player's own piece shall be considered to have been touched before his opponent's.

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?No.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?Colour.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?Irrespective of F6 of the Swiss pairing rules, F7 allows the arbiter to change the pairing even if it has been made public. As such you change the pairings. If the player with the easier pairings then wins a prize thats his good fortune.
F7. If either
- result was written down incorrectly, or
- a game was played with the wrong colours, or
- a player's rating has to be corrected, then this will only affect pairing yet to be made.

Whether it will affect a pairing already made public but not yet played should be decided by the arbiter.

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)Most likely the distribution of prize money. However even if Y suddenly blundered and lost, with no means to prove it, you would be hard pressed to take any action.

Ian Rout
29-03-2005, 06:00 PM
(4) is a real problem because there is no fully satisfactory solution. If the player who has had three or four (or even one) easier game than they should also gets the point back at the last minute then not only do they have an enhanced chance at a prize but so does the player who plays them (as it would be an easier game than that player should have). Similarly but in reverse for the other player.

I think whatever action is taken should not be to the benefit of the player who misreported the result, even if it was an accident (as it's a hypothetical we can assume that). Ideally it should not be to the benefit of the other player also; they really have some duty to other players to notice that they have been paired in the wrong group.

Maybe the least worst action is to treat the result as 0:0 - the player who was incorrectly given the point loses it, and the player who was initially deprived has already got it back through easier pairings (provided they have scored at least one point since) so shouldn't get it again. The real result should of course be submitted for rating.

Alan Shore
29-03-2005, 08:30 PM
Note: There are no right and wrong answers here, just happy and unhappy players.

Since there's no right or wrong answers...

A quick quiz on some "hypothetical" incidents at the Doeberl Cup.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

I think the player's intentions should be fairly obvious, I would give the draw.

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

No. Rules bookbashing is all very well but human arbiters are perfectly capable of making reasonable decisions not to the letter of the 'oft ridiculous' FIDE rules.

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

If the player touches his opponent's piece first then it must (if possible) be captured.

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

No. I discussed this with others and we all agreed we have all in the past used different methods to capture a piece, even during the same game. Also, chaning your ruling again based on such circumstantial evidence is quite inconsistent.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

Top half against bottom half (also discussed this with a few people). As long as the colours are not badly violated (i.e. 3 blacks in a row or any rubbish) then ratings pairings are more important.. isn't the point of chess to give all players even chances with both colours? When chess is solved I believe it will be a draw, not a forced win for white.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings? What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

I agree this is the most difficult. I think I'll abstain :)

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

'Mate, I'd like to make you an offer you can't refuse...'

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2005, 08:44 PM
Since there's no right or wrong answers...Shaun may well say that but some answers are more right than others. ;)
BTW I'm not picking on your post, its just it follows mine. :lol:

I think the player's intentions should be fairly obvious, I would give the draw.His intention is immaterial. Otherwise if decisions are based on a players intentions the next time your opponent touches a piece and leaves he queen en prise he can always take it back by simply pointing out he had no intention of leaving it en prise. :lol:

No. Rules bookbashing is all very well but human arbiters are perfectly capable of making reasonable decisions not to the letter of the 'oft ridiculous' FIDE rules.Although your answer is correct your reasoning is flawed. The FIDE rules state the arbiter must follow the FIDE rules. Any arbiter failing to do would no doubt have his ruling overturned on appeal.

If the player touches his opponent's piece first then it must (if possible) be captured.Unquestionably true, however how do you know he touched his opponents piece first. The answer is you dont.

No. I discussed this with others and we all agreed we have all in the past used different methods to capture a piece, even during the same game. Also, chaning your ruling again based on such circumstantial evidence is quite inconsistent.Agreed.

Top half against bottom half (also discussed this with a few people). As long as the colours are not badly violated (i.e. 3 blacks in a row or any rubbish) then ratings pairings are more important.. isn't the point of chess to give all players even chances with both colours? When chess is solved I believe it will be a draw, not a forced win for white.Although I'm inclined to agree with you shaun did not ask what you think the criteria should be but what is currently more important in the Dutch rules.

I agree this is the most difficult. I think I'll abstain :)As an arbiter you wouldnt have that luxury. ;)

'Mate, I'd like to make you an offer you can't refuse...'Is that offer with or without the horses head. :lol:

Alan Shore
29-03-2005, 08:58 PM
His intention is immaterial. Otherwise if decisions are based on a players intentions the next time your opponent touches a piece and leaves he queen en prise he can always take it back by simply pointing out he had no intention of leaving it en prise.

I understand what you mean but it really depends on 'how' thing transpired. You see, this incident happened just two boards away from me. The draw was awarded by the arbiter in this case and I believed, rightly so. It was not a case of the player doing 'touch move' but rather demonstrating the draw. Things are not always so black and white.

Although your answer is correct your reasoning is flawed. The FIDE rules state the arbiter must follow the FIDE rules. Any arbiter failing to do would no doubt have his ruling overturned on appeal.

Well here's some trivia for you Bill - When we played the lightning, king captures were allowed. Shaun Press refused to follow the 'FIDE rubbish' and I applaud him for that, I would have done exactly the same if I was arbiter and will continue to in the future. Gijssen has personal issues - if he loses an argument about the rules he just changes them! Therefore FIDE can do what it likes but common sense should prevail. :hand:

Unquestionably true, however how do you know he touched his opponents piece first. The answer is you dont.

That's true. If it's impossible to tell then I suppose your rule about enforcing is acceptable.. just one of those dicey situations.

Although I'm inclined to agree with you shaun did not ask what you think the criteria should be but what is currently more important in the Dutch rules.

Well what I think is more important is what I think is more important.. in both cases. Kegless I know was not thrilled about having to play a higher rated player just to sort out colour scheming.

As an arbiter you wouldnt have that luxury. ;)

True, true.. I would have to give it some thought!

Is that offer with or without the horses head. :lol:

;)

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2005, 09:18 PM
I understand what you mean but it really depends on 'how' thing transpired. You see, this incident happened just two boards away from me. The draw was awarded by the arbiter in this case and I believed, rightly so. It was not a case of the player doing 'touch move' but rather demonstrating the draw. Things are not always so black and white.Oh I can understand where you are coming from.
However Shaun in his post said "the player is going to claim a draw by repetition". According to what Shaun wrote the player had not in fact made the claim. Therefore in line with Article 9.4 he lost the right when he makes the move. In fact according to Stewart Reuben the player loses the right once he touches the piece since having touched it he has no option but to move it in accordance with Article 4.3.

Well here's some trivia for you Bill - When we played the lightning, king captures were allowed. Shaun Press refused to follow the 'FIDE rubbish' and I applaud him for that, I would have done exactly the same if I was arbiter and will continue to in the future. Gijssen has personal issues - if he loses an argument about the rules he just changes them! Therefore FIDE can do what it likes but common sense should prevail. :hand:We have run the NSW Lightning Championship allowing King captures also.
As been stated previously on numerous occasions the current ruling by the FIDE Rules Commision allows the arbiter to declare King captures legal in lightning provide he announces it prior tot the start of the event. As such Shaun did not refuse to follow the FIDE rubbish at all.

However from 1st July 2005 it will be illegal to capture the king. I would expect all IA's and any serious arbiters to follow the FIDE rules after that date.

That's true. If it's impossible to tell then I suppose your rule about enforcing is acceptable.. just one of those dicey situations.Yes, effectively with no witness, your only option is to follow the rules in which case Artivcle 4.3(c) applies.

Well what I think is more important is what I think is more important.. in both cases. Kegless I know was not thrilled about having to play a higher rated player just to sort out colour scheming.Thats all well and good but the current Dutch rules give preference to colour not top half V bottom half. Therefore you dont have a choice if you are going to use the Dutch rules.

Garvinator
29-03-2005, 09:24 PM
Thats all well and good but the current Dutch rules give preference to colour not top half V bottom half. Therefore you dont have a choice if you are going to use the Dutch rules.
i disagree, but am not confident enough yet to debate a whole string of regulations with you. I have emailed Charles and asked for his opinion as I know he would strongly disagree with you (I believe).

Maybe Jason Lyons will give us his opinion.

Bill Gletsos
29-03-2005, 09:39 PM
i disagree, but am not confident enough yet to debate a whole string of regulations with you. I have emailed Charles and asked for his opinion as I know he would strongly disagree with you (I believe).I would be surprised if he did because it was Charles I believe that pointed out to me ages ago that although C6 refers to B1 and B2 it really should be referring to B1 to B6. In fact Stewart Reuben tries to rectify this in the section of his book The Chess Organisers Handbook Second edition on the Dutch rules by renumbering B1 & B2 as just B1 with sections (a)-(e) and renumbering B3 to B6 as B2 with sections (a)-(d) .

Maybe Jason Lyons will give us his opinion.Or perhaps even Cathy Rogers via Ian.

Ian Rout
29-03-2005, 09:44 PM
Well I wasn't going to weigh in on Q3 as it's been round a few times in the past but as it's been getting a few bites -

It's important to note that there is no such thing as the "best" pairing for a round, except the obvious point that people on the same score should play each other as far as possible. It's a question of what field people have played over the course of the tournament that counts, so that a player finishes ahead of (or level with) another by virtue of a better (or equal) performance rather than an easier field. People who want to improvise without being aware of the balancing tendencies of the Dutch rules run the risk of creating worse features than those they sought to eliminate.

If you were to blindly pair top v bottom without regard to colour the side effects would be

- a higher rated player would generally get higher rated opponents; this would handicap that player in most circumstances, and occasionally advantage them in a tie-break.

- players would more commonly get two Whites or Blacks consecutively, meaning more players would be advantaged or disadvantaged by having such clusters at a key stage of the tournament.

- as a consequence of more people having had two of the same colour together, more potential pairings will be invalidated and there will be greater distortions needed to avoid those pairings.

Denis_Jessop
29-03-2005, 10:18 PM
Well Shaun, having seen the replies so far posted, I think there is a good case for a proposal put to me at Mt Buller by a prominent, highly-rated, Australian player for a National Arbiters' Accreditation Course to be introduced by the ACF.

(I'm not commenting on these incidents as I have inside info, from you and others, on most of them.)

DJ

pax
30-03-2005, 01:10 PM
Oh I can understand where you are coming from.
However Shaun in his post said "the player is going to claim a draw by repetition". According to what Shaun wrote the player had not in fact made the claim. Therefore in line with Article 9.4 he lost the right when he makes the move. In fact according to Stewart Reuben the player loses the right once he touches the piece since having touched it he has no option but to move it in accordance with Article 4.3.

I think this is an unnecessarily pedantic interpretation. Do you have a link to this quote by Reuben?

The rule on claiming the draw (9.2) requires him to claim the draw while he still has the move. If he has touched the piece, he absolutely still has the move (and indeed may still choose where to place the piece). One might argue that he can claim the draw before the clock is pressed, but stricly speaking the move is complete when the hand releases the piece on the board.

4.3 simply requires that the next move must be made with the touched piece, not that it be made immediately. If a draw is claimed, then 4.3 is satisfied (the move that "makes the draw" is with the touched piece.

If the player touched the wrong piece, then he cannot claim the draw since it would now be illegal for him to make the "drawing move".

Bill Gletsos
30-03-2005, 02:15 PM
I think this is an unnecessarily pedantic interpretation. Do you have a link to this quote by Reuben?It is in the first edition of his handbook.
Note I was just relaying what he said. I never said I agreed with him nor does Gijssen. In his August 2001 chesscafe article he says Regarding draw claims Article 9.4 says: “If the player makes a move without having claimed the draw he loses the right to claim, as in Article 9.2 or 9.3, on that move.” It is very clear that touching a piece, even with the intention to play this piece, is not sufficient to lose the right to claim a draw.

The rule on claiming the draw (9.2) requires him to claim the draw while he still has the move. If he has touched the piece, he absolutely still has the move (and indeed may still choose where to place the piece). One might argue that he can claim the draw before the clock is pressed, but stricly speaking the move is complete when the hand releases the piece on the board.I assume you are just discussing Reuben's comment here and not Shaun's example.
In Shaun's example it is clear the draw claim is invalidated as soon as he made the move and whether the clock was pressed or not is immaterial. Gijssen says this in his may 2001 column and again in his September 2003 column.

In his October 2003 column Geurt makes the following comments.
Let me again explain the FIDE rules briefly: Making a move means
moving a piece from one square to another. Completing a move means
making a move (see 1) and pressing the clock. The procedure of offering a
draw is (1) make a move; (2) offer a draw; and (3) press the clock.

To claim a draw if the next move would produce the same position for the
third time or if no piece or pawn has been captured and no pawn move was
made in the last 50 moves: (1) write the intended move on the scoresheet; (2) stop the clocks; and (3) summon the arbiter

To claim a draw if the same position has appeared for the third time or if 50
moves have been completed without a capture or a pawn move: (1) stop the
clocks; and (2) summon the arbiter.

pax
30-03-2005, 02:27 PM
I assume you are just discussing Reuben's comment here and not Shaun's example.
In Shaun's example it is clear the draw claim is invalidated as soon as he made the move and whether the clock was pressed or not is immaterial. Gijssen says this in his may 2001 column and again in his September 2003 column.

Read Shaun's example again Bill. The piece was touched, but the move was not made.

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it.
(emphasis mine)

Bill Gletsos
30-03-2005, 02:40 PM
Read Shaun's example again Bill. The piece was touched, but the move was not made.

(emphasis mine)Messed it up didnt I. ;) Must have been having an off day. :lol:
Ok now that I'm reading Shauns scenario correctly I would rule the draw claim valid.
Obviously Stewart wouldnt. ;)
I would however argue that over the past few changes to the laws (1997, 2001 and now 2005) FIDE have tried to be consistent with the words "touch a piece" , "make a move" and "complete a move". As such since 9.4 mentions making a move rather than touching a piece, that touching the piece is irrelevant provided a move is not made.

pax
30-03-2005, 02:58 PM
:banana: :banana: :banana:

Bill Gletsos
30-03-2005, 03:00 PM
:banana: :banana: :banana: :buttkick: :lol:

Thunderspirit
30-03-2005, 03:14 PM
Well Shaun, having seen the replies so far posted, I think there is a good case for a proposal put to me at Mt Buller by a prominent, highly-rated, Australian player for a National Arbiters' Accreditation Course to be introduced by the ACF.

(I'm not commenting on these incidents as I have inside info, from you and others, on most of them.)

DJ

I agree. The ACF should have some form of accredition scheme so that arbiters are all kosher.

shaun
30-03-2005, 06:06 PM
Now for some "hypothetical" rulings.

1) It was decided that simply touching a piece did not constitute a move and therefore the claim had not been invalidated.
1a) It quickly became clear that the other player was willing to agree to a draw but wanted to prove the rightness of his position. Therefore the task was getting the player to accept the result he wanted, which did take some doing.

2) It was decided that the opponents piece had been touched first and that a legal capture was allowed. While rule 4.3(c) can apply blindly in this situation, Arbiters are allowed to exercise their judgement.
2a) But having seen the followup there was a feeling of unease. Nonetheless the decision had been made and was not reversed. It would be easy to be an Arbiter if every player a) followed the rules and b) told the truth, but sometimes this doesn't happen.

3) I think I'll start a whole new thread on this one.

4) It turned out to be an honest mistake, complicated by the fact that the proper reporting/checking procedures were not followed by the players. The real Rd 5 result was a draw but was recorded as a win for Black. Part of the problem was that only 1 scoresheet was submitted (and it did not have the result written on it) and that White, not Black, should have submitted the result in the case of a draw. Even when the players felt there was something wrong with the pairings in the next round it was only just before the start of Rd 7 was our attention drawn to the problem.
Too late to change the pairings and thankfully neither player managed to win a prize as a consequence. If they had we probably would have had no choice but to award it.

5) Bad luck but the \$100 prize was claimed on the day by Mr X himself. His explanation was that he felt the two players on board 1 had colluded to win the tournament by agreeing to a quick draw and he just wanted to see if his opponent was in on the deal.
Follow up question: How big a truck can you drive through the hole in this explanation?

jenni
31-03-2005, 12:04 PM
5) Bad luck but the \$100 prize was claimed on the day by Mr X himself. His explanation was that he felt the two players on board 1 had colluded to win the tournament by agreeing to a quick draw and he just wanted to see if his opponent was in on the deal.
Follow up question: How big a truck can you drive through the hole in this explanation?

Normally I would agree with you on this one, as Mr X's explanation defies any logic! However having observed him during the game and talked to him afterwards, he was seriously stressed over the whole thing and genuinely believed that everyone around him was colluding to cheat him out of his win.

While Mr X has been known to be a bit dodgy from time to time, I do believe in this case he felt that he was the one who was being cheated, even though it was patently not true. I have seen many parents at the juniors succumb to this sort of paranoia and I know that there does not have to be logic behind it.

Mischa
31-03-2005, 12:18 PM
No way Jenni, us parents are an unbiased, generous, laid back lot. You know that

jenni
31-03-2005, 12:23 PM
No way Jenni, us parents are an unbiased, generous, laid back lot. You know that

:whistle: :whistle:

Mischa
31-03-2005, 12:40 PM
Well I am sure there are SOME who may be. Er, actually I don't think there are.

Rhubarb
31-03-2005, 01:48 PM
Kegless I know was not thrilled about having to play a higher rated player just to sort out colour scheming. Hey Beltho, first of all it was great to finally meet you and a few of the other chesschatters. I'll attempt to buy Matty a couple of beers on Sunday at the C of S to make up for his generosity.

I arrived late to the dinner as I was waiting for the final round draw and you're right I wasn't too happy with copping Smerdon with Black in the last round. I probably should have explained the whole thing better, though, as it was more of a general whinge than a complaint. The computer pairings had been overridden. I didn't have a problem with that as I believe Cathy Rogers had announced before the start under which circumstances this would happen. The upshot was that instead of getting my due colour White (White against anyone, I wouldn't have cared) I was Black.

Random events have been conspiring against me lately to give me a preponderance of Blacks, especially in important games. There was the zonal, the Oz masters, the NSWCA October weekender (where SP wasn't overruled when it would have favoured me for once - there's a whole thread on this here) and now I have 4 out of 6 Blacks in the C of S after preparing with White in round 6, thinking it would be virtually impossible to be Black against Ayvazyan since I was half a point ahead (I subsequently found out that if two players have 3 Bs and 2 Ws, sequence is given a higher priority than rank).

So getting White in round 1 in Doeberl and still getting Black against Bjelobrk and Smerdon in the last two rounds really gave me the tomtits. Just for once I'd like to be Black in round 1 and White in the last 2 rounds. Note once again that I didn't make a complaint, nor did I suggest that the arbiters made a mistake. In fact, the last thing I said to Shaun when I was discussing this with him was I hoped that it would eventually even out one day. (And no doubt you won't see me whinging when it does. :) )

shaun
31-03-2005, 02:10 PM
Note once again that I didn't make a complaint, nor did I suggest that the arbiters made a mistake. In fact, the last thing I said to Shaun when I was discussing this with him was I hoped that it would eventually even out one day. (And no doubt you won't see me whinging when it does. :) )
In fact I was going to make a similar post to this on the Colour preference thread, but you beat me to it. I agree with your observations here.

Kevin Bonham
31-03-2005, 05:44 PM
I see the answers have already been given, but my views are:

1) A player is going to claim a draw by repetition, and follows all the steps (eg writes the move on the scoresheet without playing it). But before he stops the clock and summons the arbiter he helpfully shows his oppnent the move he intends to make by touching the piece he intends to move, but does not actually move it. What do you rule?

Has not made move therefore draw.

1a) Follow up to question 1. Does your ruling change if the other player insists the first player moves the piece as instended so that he can claim the draw instead?

Other player can insist what he likes, there is a valid draw claim already pending so other player should be ignored.

2) A player caprues a piece with an illegal knight move (ie it moved diagonally). The opponents piece can be captured by another piece but the argument revolves around which piece was touched first, the capturing piece or the captured piece. The moving player insists he touched the piece he intended to capture first and therefore should be allowed to capture the piece with any of his other pieces. What do you rule?

Need to know what opponent says here. If the opponent says the player definitely touched the knight first then I apply 4.(3)c and make the player move the knight. If the opponent says "not sure" while the player insists he touched the captured piece first then I would let the player take the captured piece first. I try to accept the word of the player who is more confident they are correct.

2a) Follow up. Would your ruling change if ,after your ruling, you then saw the player pick up his own piece first in effecting the capture?

Interesting but insufficient reason to reverse decision.

3) What is more important in the current Dutch pairing rules: As many people getting their correct colour preference or pairing top half against bottom half?

Colour.

4) A result is misreported in an early round and is not picked up by either player until just before the start of the final round. Do you change the pairings?

Yes, for reason explained by Bill and because the lucky player has had an easy enough time of it already.

What happens if the player with the "easier" pairings then wins a prize?

Accidents happen.

5) Last round pairings have 3 players on 5 leading the event, and an up floater on 4.5. Two players on 5 agree a quick draw, moving them to 5.5. The game between Mr X on 5 and Mr Y on 4.5 is still in progress. A few minutes later Mr X initiates a conversation with Mr Y away from the board.
What do you think they were talking about? (A \$100 prize for the most imaginitive answer)

*sigh*

Am I correct in saying that Caissa administered the necessary justice to this gentleman? That was the impression I got from the tournament report. :lol:

Normally I would agree with you on this one, as Mr X's explanation defies any logic! However having observed him during the game and talked to him afterwards, he was seriously stressed over the whole thing and genuinely believed that everyone around him was colluding to cheat him out of his win.

But by the final round such a belief by him is completely irrational, to the point that it's hard to see how even a conspiratorial paranoid type would believe it. If they wanted to cheat him out of his win, the best way would be for them to play wildly to ensure a result.

If there is a result in the "colluded" game:
If X wins he is two-way =1st.
If X draws he is second, two-way =2nd as it would have turned out.
If X loses he is out of it, =3rd or so.

If there is a draw in the "colluded" game:
If X wins he is outright 1st.
If X draws he is =1st, four-way =1st as it would have turned out.
If X loses he is out of it, 5th or worse.

So the draw only harms X if he loses and otherwise it benefits his chances of winning and of winning by himself.

I would have been sooooo tempted to forfeit this guy on the spot.

jenni
31-03-2005, 06:34 PM
But by the final round such a belief by him is completely irrational, to the point that it's hard to see how even a conspiratorial paranoid type would believe it. If they wanted to cheat him out of his win, the best way would be for them to play wildly to ensure a result.

If there is a result in the "colluded" game:
If X wins he is two-way =1st.
If X draws he is second, two-way =2nd as it would have turned out.
If X loses he is out of it, =3rd or so.

If there is a draw in the "colluded" game:
If X wins he is outright 1st.
If X draws he is =1st, four-way =1st as it would have turned out.
If X loses he is out of it, 5th or worse.

So the draw only harms X if he loses and otherwise it benefits his chances of winning and of winning by himself.

I would have been sooooo tempted to forfeit this guy on the spot.

But you are being logical - by definition there is no logic when this sort of paranoia takes over. The guy came over to talk to me in the middle of his game - and he was just about shaking he was so stressed by everything.

shaun
01-04-2005, 07:57 AM
Am I correct in saying that Caissa administered the necessary justice to this gentleman? That was the impression I got from the tournament report. :lol:

Yes, Mr X managed to assist the conspiritors in their endevours by losing his last round game.
But in all seriousness, let me make it clear that the only players behaviour we were concerned about was Mr. X and the other 3 players were NOT suspected of any wrongdoing, no matter what suggestions Mr X and his camp followers may be putting around post event.
Not only were we concerned about what Mr X was or was not offering Mr Y, but the fact that the conversation took place at all was a possible attempt by Mr X to simply put Mr Y off his game, a tactic that Mr X has used throughout his career.

pax
01-04-2005, 12:29 PM
The upshot was that instead of getting my due colour White (White against anyone, I wouldn't have cared) I was Black.

What due colour? Surely you are only "due" a particular colour in the final round if
a) you have had more of one colour than another, or
b) you have had two in a row.

It would be pretty ludicrous to use colour preference (compared to your previous game only) as a reason for not pairing two players.

Rhubarb
01-04-2005, 12:57 PM
Oh man, I hate trying to explain my position after being dragged into a discussion and still having people misunderstand me.

What due colour? Surely you are only "due" a particular colour in the final round if
a) you have had more of one colour than another, or
b) you have had two in a row. Smerdon and I both had WBWBWB. As such, we are both due White in the final round. I didn't make any suggestion that it was a high priority.

It would be pretty ludicrous to use colour preference (compared to your previous game only) as a reason for not pairing two players.Who the hell suggested this was a reason for not pairing two players?

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2005, 01:41 PM
But you are being logical - by definition there is no logic when this sort of paranoia takes over. The guy came over to talk to me in the middle of his game - and he was just about shaking he was so stressed by everything.

Weird.

At that level, it's only a game.

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2005, 01:46 PM
But in all seriousness, let me make it clear that the only players behaviour we were concerned about was Mr. X and the other 3 players were NOT suspected of any wrongdoing, no matter what suggestions Mr X and his camp followers may be putting around post event.

Yes, that was what I figured.

A short draw in itself should never be assumed to be evidence of pre-game collusion. It can often happen when both players approach the game independently in a drawish mindset.

In their situation I would normally have been doing my best to unbalance and play for a win provided that I did not get massively worse in so doing. Maybe they were confident that Mr X would blow up under pressure.

jenni
01-04-2005, 01:58 PM
Weird.

At that level, it's only a game.

Not sure - sometimes a person can get really worked up about the prestige of winning something like the major.

As Shaun says the person concerned has a history of doing dodgy things - I was certainly manipulated by him when I was DOP'ing a tournament last year, and it won't happen again. :evil: (I am a naturally trusting person, unless I have experience elsewhere). However in this case I only saw a seriously stressed person, who in fact threw away a winning position under stress.

The fact that the stress was entirely generated by imaginary scenarios, doesn't make it less real to him.

pax
01-04-2005, 01:59 PM
Oh man, I hate trying to explain my position after being dragged into a discussion and still having people misunderstand me.

Smerdon and I both had WBWBWB. As such, we are both due White in the final round. I didn't make any suggestion that it was a high priority.

Who the hell suggested this was a reason for not pairing two players?

Hokay, so are you simply cursing your luck at having been the player that got black (or at having got a higher rated player with the same colour history)? That's fine, it's just that there seemed to be an implication that you would have preferred a different pairing method that would have yielded a different outcome.

Sorry if I've upset you, I'm just engaging in the discussion. I realize you have not actually complained about anything.

Pax

Ian Rout
01-04-2005, 02:15 PM
If I were Mr X I would have been quite pleased to see the draw. First, it gives me the prospect of an outright win. Second, I now only need a draw for equal first. And perhaps most important, I know where I stand and can just play the game, I don't have to be constantly factoring in what might be happening on the other board.

jenni
01-04-2005, 02:25 PM
If I were Mr X I would have been quite pleased to see the draw. First, it gives me the prospect of an outright win. Second, I now only need a draw for equal first. And perhaps most important, I know where I stand and can just play the game, I don't have to be constantly factoring in what might be happening on the other board.
You are all just being too logical. Maybe you have to be female to understand emotions, or maybe you have to mix with parents.....

Rhubarb
01-04-2005, 02:36 PM
okay, so are you simply cursing your luckPrecisely. I'm sick of getting Black. In my last six tournaments I've been "screwed on colour" as Shaun would have it. I'm including the City of Sydney here as somehow I don't think I'll get three Whites in a row to finish.

That's fine, it's just that there seemed to be an implication that you would have preferred a different pairing method that would have yielded a different outcome.It's possible SP had me paired with Black anyway, I don't know.

Sorry if I've upset you, I'm just engaging in the discussion. I realize you have not actually complained about anything.No problem. :)

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2005, 03:42 PM
Maybe you have to be female to understand emotions,

Obviously not, this is a male player we're talking about - and one who is not just being emotional (which both males and females are capable of at tournaments) but has crossed the line into serious irrationality (which both males and females are capable of both avoiding and refusing to empathise with).

or maybe you have to mix with parents.....

Hmmmmm .... :lol:

Bas
01-04-2005, 09:27 PM
Not only were we concerned about what Mr X was or was not offering Mr Y, but the fact that the conversation took place at all was a possible attempt by Mr X to simply put Mr Y off his game, a tactic that Mr X has used throughout his career.

I am a bit puzzled about the discussion of this case. Is it not true that when players are found to have a little conversation 'on the side' that they both should receive a forfeit? And that it does not matter which topic they were discussing? To prevent collusion?
In fact, when the incident occurred one of the other players nearby became upset, got up and reported the incident to one of the DOP's.
It is true that Mr X was very tense and agitated right from the start of the game, and he had already offered a draw at least three times within the first 30 minutes or so. Accompanied with additional noises and remarks...
And some time after the 'incident', Mr X suddenly muttered 'adjust' and began to adjust all the pieces on the board. If such behaviour is not offputting, I don't know what is. I really admire Mr Y for keeping his cool under the circumstances and winning a nice game. And deservedly winning a price in the process. As for Mr X, I still felt a bit sorry for him at the end...

arosar
01-04-2005, 10:08 PM
FMD! Mr X this, Mr Y that! THis is more captivating than the movie I'm currently watching! Does this Mr X appear in my photo collection?

If you tell me, I tell you which player paid \$10 to his opponent.

AR

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 01:20 AM
FMD! Mr X this, Mr Y that! THis is more captivating than the movie I'm currently watching! Does this Mr X appear in my photo collection?

If you tell me, I tell you which player paid \$10 to his opponent.

AR

Amiel, I found it quite easy to ascertain the identity of X and Y based upon the final standings, following the clues within this thread... ;)

Garvinator
02-04-2005, 01:27 AM
Amiel, I found it quite easy to ascertain the identity of X and Y based upon the final standings, following the clues within this thread... ;)
so if it that obvious, then ppl should just name names ;)

Alan Shore
02-04-2005, 01:33 AM
so if it that obvious, then ppl should just name names ;)

But that takes away all the fun of the detective work..!

Libby
02-04-2005, 07:48 AM
But that takes away all the fun of the detective work..!

And assumes much detective work is actually required :doh:

02-04-2005, 11:25 AM
FMD! Mr X this, Mr Y that! THis is more captivating than the movie I'm currently watching! Does this Mr X appear in my photo collection?

If you tell me, I tell you which player paid \$10 to his opponent.

AR
yes Amiel ... the mysterious Mr X in in your collection of photos ... just don't say it was Mr Z who paid the \$10!

JGB
02-04-2005, 11:51 AM
yes Amiel ... the mysterious Mr X in in your collection of photos ... just don't say it was Mr Z who paid the \$10!

Now I want to know too! Relieve us from your Alfred Hitchcock style suspense Arosar!

arosar
02-04-2005, 12:12 PM
Of course it was just a joke. Actually, it was John Curtis' ribbing of his blitz opponent and we three had a good laugh at it. The player in question didn't manage to win a game until round 6, ya see.

AR

JGB
02-04-2005, 12:50 PM
In Blitz, Belthasar and I spent a few quid losing! ;) He knows what i mean.

Denis_Jessop
02-04-2005, 09:54 PM
yes Amiel ... the mysterious Mr X in in your collection of photos ... just don't say it was Mr Z who paid the \$10!

True - Mr Z is often the Arbiter but he wasn't there. :( :hmm:

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
15-04-2005, 07:28 PM
It's easy to spot Mr X and Mr Y in tournaments... there the ones wearing the professional wrestling masks.