PDA

View Full Version : Arbiter's Corner: Notes & Queries



Pages : [1] 2

arosar
06-01-2004, 06:55 PM
If player A offers player B a draw, must player B accept before his (B) flag fall?

AR

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 07:41 PM
He must claim the draw before A claims the win on time.

Rincewind
21-01-2004, 07:43 PM
We had two Blitz nights (G5) at our club in the last month and the same player was involved in two disputes (although through no "fault" of their own, just mentioned as it was a remarkable coincidence).

OK.

To keep it less confusing I will word it as a single situation with various claims by the players.

Situation

Player A with the move is about to checkmate player B. Player B calls "time". Arbiter arrives on the scene there is checkmate on the board and the clock shows player A's flag fallen but time remaining for player B. There were no witnesses.

Case A

A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
B claims the time call came first

Case B

A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
B is unsure if the time call came first

Case C

A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
B claims the time call came first

Case D

A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
B is unsure if the time call came first

What happened

OK what happened first was case C and the game was ruled won by B on time. The second was case D and the players agreed to a draw and reported that result without consulting an arbiter. I think it should have been awarded as a win to A by checkmate.

What do others think?

Bill Gletsos
21-01-2004, 09:13 PM
We had two Blitz nights (G5) at our club in the last month and the same player was involved in two disputes (although through no "fault" of their own, just mentioned as it was a remarkable coincidence).

OK.

To keep it less confusing I will word it as a single situation with various claims by the players.

Situation

Player A with the move is about to checkmate player B. Player B calls "time". Arbiter arrives on the scene there is checkmate on the board and the clock shows player A's flag fallen but time remaining for player B. There were no witnesses.

Case A

A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
B claims the time call came first

Case B

A claims to have made the checkmate move before the time call
B is unsure if the time call came first

Case C

A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
B claims the time call came first

Case D

A is unsure if the checkmate move was made before the time call
B is unsure if the time call came first

What happened

OK what happened first was case C and the game was ruled won by B on time. The second was case D and the players agreed to a draw and reported that result without consulting an arbiter. I think it should have been awarded as a win to A by checkmate.

What do others think?
These situations have obviously happened before.

The answers are simple.

In all cases other than C the arbiter should declare A the winner.
In case C then B is declared the winner.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 12:07 AM
Thanks for the reply Bill. I agree with you on B, C and D. As I said, D was not recorded that way but that was no fault of mine, the incident was relayed to me by the player until the following week.

However Case A is interesting. I was thinking that perhaps it should be replayed, time permitting, or recorded as a draw otherwise.

Is the onus on the player with the time claim to prove that such a claim was made before the checkmating move? Otherwise, what is the reasoning?

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 09:34 AM
Thanks for the reply Bill. I agree with you on B, C and D. As I said, D was not recorded that way but that was no fault of mine, the incident was relayed to me by the player until the following week.

However Case A is interesting. I was thinking that perhaps it should be replayed, time permitting, or recorded as a draw otherwise.

Is the onus on the player with the time claim to prove that such a claim was made before the checkmating move? Otherwise, what is the reasoning?
That is pretty much the reasoning.
Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.

One thing that may nort be obvious to the casual reader of your scenario is the following.

For his claim to be valid the player making claiming the mate must have completed his move prior to his opponent claiming the win on time.
What this means is that the player claiming the mate must have made the mating move on the board AND released the piece. The mate is then immediate and he wins the game. He does not have to stop his clock.
If however his hand is still on the piece when the opponent claims the win on time then the move is incomplete and he loses on time.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 12:20 PM
That is pretty much the reasoning.
Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.

Thanks again but I'm still not sure and/or confused.

The checkmate position cannot be the be all and end all. For example the checkmate must have come about from a legal move. So if the move that created checkmate was illegal it cannot stand. Therefore, I would think the arbiter cannot simply rule on the board position.

Likewise, the clock is showing no time for player A. But the arbiter cannot know if the time claim came before the checkmate move.

The question is was the move made before the time call or not. A cannot "prove" the checkmate position was legal, B cannot prove the time call was made first. I know B is not claiming a win by illegal move, but you get my point. Why should the board overrule the clock as neither provides absolute proof for either claim.

It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.

arosar
22-01-2004, 12:32 PM
It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.

If I were the arbiter with this dilemma, I would say draw - no replay.

AR

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 12:36 PM
That is pretty much the reasoning.
Under your scenario where there are no witnesses, when the arbiter is called to the board he is presented with a mate on the board. The player making the time claim has no means of proof where as the player claiming the mate has proof since it is apparent from the board position.

Thanks again but I'm still not sure and/or confused.

The checkmate position cannot be the be all and end all. For example the checkmate must have come about from a legal move. So if the move that created checkmate was illegal it cannot stand. Therefore, I would think the arbiter cannot simply rule on the board position.

Likewise, the clock is showing no time for player A. But the arbiter cannot know if the time claim came before the checkmate move.

The question is was the move made before the time call or not. A cannot "prove" the checkmate position was legal, B cannot prove the time call was made first. I know B is not claiming a win by illegal move, but you get my point. Why should the board overrule the clock as neither provides absolute proof for either claim.
Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.


It is basically one word against another, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to find in favour of either party in that situation. Therefore replay or draw.
It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 12:58 PM
Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.

Yeah, I used the illegal position to illustrate the arbiter cannot consider just the board.

But it seems to me you have a claim and counter-claim which are logically incosistent (they cannot both be true). If the move was made before the time claim then A should win, if the time claim was made before checkmate then B should win. There seems no way to determine who is right, so I can't see why A's opinion is adopted.


It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

Player A cannot prove the mate was made before the time claim. What is the difference?

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 01:06 PM
Naturally the mating move has to be a legal move. However the player claiming the win on time is not claiming an illegal move. Hence you can conclude the mating move was legal. The player making the claim on time cannot prove that the opponents falg had fallen at the time of the mate. The player claiming the mate can prove the mate since it is on the board.

Yeah, I used the illegal position to illustrate the arbiter cannot consider just the board.

But it seems to me you have a claim and counter-claim which are logically incosistent (they cannot both be true). If the move was made before the time claim then A should win, if the time claim was made before checkmate then B should win. There seems no way to determine who is right, so I can't see why A's opinion is adopted.


It isnt really one word against the other. One can prove the mate. The other cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

Player A cannot prove the mate was made before the time claim. What is the difference?
If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

A is declared the winner.

FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 01:22 PM
If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

A is declared the winner.

FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.

If I were to rephrase this to

A is not making a claim, he just checkmated his opponent.
B is making a claim of win on time but connot establish his claim occurred before the checkmate.
As the claim cannot be proved, it is rejected and the checkmate stands.

Does that capture the reasoning?

If so I'm happy but will need to remember this for next time.


Fortunately, Case A didn't occur what actually happened was Case C but after talking to the player at length another night it turns out it was more like a combination of A and C.

Player A couldn't say whether the time claim was made before or after the checkmate was made, but challenged B's certainty of knowing the time claim was made first. His argument being he would have had to be looking at the clock to make a valid claim at the right time and there was so little time taken in the last move that there would not have been time for B to be certain he got in first. What happens then???

Ian Rout
22-01-2004, 01:35 PM
Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.

I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 01:46 PM
If I recall the argument correctly it goes as follows.

A is simply claiming to have mated B. There is an implied before his flag fell.
B is claiming a win on time before being mated.

Based on the evidence available to the arbiter their is a mate on the board. This cannot be disputed.
B cannot prove the flag fell prior to the mate.

A is declared the winner.

FWIW all IA's I have ever heard describe the above all agree that A wins.

If I were to rephrase this to

A is not making a claim, he just checkmated his opponent.
B is making a claim of win on time but connot establish his claim occurred before the checkmate.
As the claim cannot be proved, it is rejected and the checkmate stands.

Does that capture the reasoning?

If so I'm happy but will need to remember this for next time.
I'm happy if you want to look at it in that way.



Fortunately, Case A didn't occur what actually happened was Case C but after talking to the player at length another night it turns out it was more like a combination of A and C.

Player A couldn't say whether the time claim was made before or after the checkmate was made, but challenged B's certainty of knowing the time claim was made first. His argument being he would have had to be looking at the clock to make a valid claim at the right time and there was so little time taken in the last move that there would not have been time for B to be certain he got in first. What happens then???
A would win. He has the mate. B cannot prove the flag fell first.


I have been one of the arbiters where case A has occured twice with no witnesses.
In one of those tournaments there were 4 arbiters. The arbiter of the lowest division was confronted with case A. He was unsure how to rule. He raised it with the Cheif Arbiter(an IA), the other arbiter and myself.
We all agreed that the player who had checkmated his opponent won the game.
The ruling in the other tournament was the same.

However I have personally witnessed case A 3 times where I was the arbiter and observing the board.

In one A's hand left the piece maybe 1-22 seconds before B called time. A was declared the winner.
In the other A's hand left the piece maybe 1-2 seconds after B called time. B was declared the winner.
The last was very difficult. A's hand left the piece and B called time virtually at the same time. I declared A the winner.

arosar
22-01-2004, 02:04 PM
sorry Bill. I reckon I'm with Bazza on this - though I'd be a little more decisive and declare the game a draw. I just don't like to waste my time and other people's. If I were one of the players I'd simply offer a draw too.

It just doesn't seem right to award a full point to Player A. Let's hope you won't be an arbiter when I'm Player B cos I just about reckon you'd make me quite upset with you mate. I think you're wrong in your reasoning and Bazza was right to characterise this as "one player's word against anothers's".

Whaddya other fellaz reckon?

AR

Ian Rout
22-01-2004, 02:09 PM
I think Bill is right. Harsh, but those are the rules.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 02:26 PM
Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.

Unfortunately the arbiter in these examples is not witnessing the play so he can only decide based on the evidence provided by the players themselves. I guess you should take B at his word if A is unsure.


I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.

:D
My 7-y-o son received a goldfish yesterday. He named him "Blitzen".

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 02:32 PM
I think Bill is right. Harsh, but those are the rules.

I'm starting to come around to Bill's way of thinking too. However, I could imagine it might be a difficult sell to a Player B with his blood up. :D

BTW I realised later I used the same naming for cases and players. Sorry about the confusion.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 02:40 PM
sorry Bill. I reckon I'm with Bazza on this - though I'd be a little more decisive and declare the game a draw. I just don't like to waste my time and other people's. If I were one of the players I'd simply offer a draw too.

It just doesn't seem right to award a full point to Player A. Let's hope you won't be an arbiter when I'm Player B cos I just about reckon you'd make me quite upset with you mate. I think you're wrong in your reasoning and Bazza was right to characterise this as "one player's word against anothers's".
Hopefully you noticed I said I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

I can think fo a number of NSW Arbiters who are IA's who I know have ruled that A is the winner in case A.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 02:47 PM
Barry's case C is interesting in that if A claims the checkmate we have case A [unfortunately the cases and players have the same names]. If player A is sure that his flag fell first then it would be unethical to claim otherwise, but if he isn't sure then shouldn't he be entitled to ask the arbiter for a ruling - like a cricketer asking whether a ball nicked the bat when he isn't sure but it's close enough to let the umpire decide.

I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.

arosar
22-01-2004, 02:47 PM
. . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

Then I disagree with 'em too.

It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

AR

Ian Rout
22-01-2004, 02:53 PM
I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.

That's true, but the situation would hardly ever happen in normal chess, especially with guillotine finishes flying the way of the pterodactyl, and an arbiter would normally be watching.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:00 PM
. . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

Then I disagree with 'em too.

It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.
Your [censored] of an opponent may be an equally honest person.
He may truly believe that he released the piece before you called flag just as much as you truly believe that he didnt.
The arbiter can only go by what he sees on the board.

Also take the following example.

Player AR claims his opponent touched a piece and left his queen on prise.
Player [censored] denies the allegation.
Player AR is in a losing position. Player AR is a very honorable person.
There are no witnesses.

The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.

The moral is both situations are the same
If Player [censored] wants to be a [censored] and lie then there is nothing the arbiter can do without a witness.

ursogr8
22-01-2004, 03:01 PM
. . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

Then I disagree with 'em too.

It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

AR

I remember watching the debate on the old board about the definition of
"completes the move ". Was the outcome of the debate such that you can complete a move even though your flag has fallen?

arosar
22-01-2004, 03:06 PM
The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.

I appreciate all this Bill.

But mate, 'playing on' is a totally different ruling to awarding a full point. So, that's why I reckon the arbiter should say, 'draw'. It's the diplomatic choice, surely?

AR

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:11 PM
I think what all this shows is that lightning shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The issue is this situation applies equally to rapid or normal chess not just blitz.

That's true, but the situation would hardly ever happen in normal chess, especially with guillotine finishes flying the way of the pterodactyl, and an arbiter would normally be watching.
Overall I think your probably right.
I have seen it at least once in normal chess but that was back in the early 90's.
Could still happen in grade matches. They still have guillotine finishes.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:12 PM
. . . I havent met an IA yet who disagrees with my point of view. Also in the tournaments with other arbiters they all agreed A wins.

Then I disagree with 'em too.

It's like this mate. I'm player B yeah? My opponent, A, picks up his piece to deliver mate. As his hand is in mid-air his flag falls and in that very instant I scream, "FLAG!" But the [censored] completes the move anyways. I says to him, "Sorry mate you've lost on time". Sadly for me there were no friggin witnesses. What my opponent then does is call you over. Now Bill, I'm a very honourable person. Trust me on this. I might bullschit from time to time but I never lie mate. Now according to you, the [censored] wins and I lost. How's that bloody fair? I swear Bill, that'll be the end of our friendship.

AR

I remember watching the debate on the old board about the definition of
"completes the move ". Was the outcome of the debate such that you can complete a move even though your flag has fallen?
A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:21 PM
The arbiter has no choice but to deny player AR's claim and tells him to play on.

I appreciate all this Bill.

But mate, 'playing on' is a totally different ruling to awarding a full point. So, that's why I reckon the arbiter should say, 'draw'. It's the diplomatic choice, surely?

AR
I can appreciate your viewpoint, I just dont agree with it. ;)

The "play on" is effectively awarding the full point because you game was losing anyway.

The issue is what if you were the player who had legitimately mated and your opponent claimed a win on time. You would be pretty peeved that the arbiter declared it a draw instead of the win.

In the circumstances the opinion is whats happened on the board is what matters. There is a mate. Hence player A wins.

arosar
22-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Look Bill, shut your fingertips alright. I'm getting all frustrated here. I can't help meself thinking I'm player B and doing a bit of a Michael Douglas. As far as I'm concerned, it's a G5 wherein time is of the essence. He's bloody lost on time. Period.

AR

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 03:30 PM
A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.

I believe the terminology is "made" vs "complete".

Once the requirements of Art 3 are satisfied the move is "made" (Article 4.7), once the clock is press the move is "complete" (Article 6.8 ).

To checkmate, stalemate, draw or enter a dead position the move simply needs to be "made". Although Article 6.8 also says the move is "considered complete" if it finishs the game.

Finishing the game can be more than checkmate or stalemate. Moves that can finish the game include drawn by repetition of position, drawn by 50 move rule or moves resulting in dead positions. Of course the draw claims can be difficult to prove in without a record of moves.

Games can also be finished without moves, of course, resigning or agreeing to a draw.

Garvinator
22-01-2004, 03:35 PM
something that i dont think anyone has noticed in this circumstance is that because the clock and board are not connected, player A can deliver mate after the clock has hit zero and mate will still be on the board. Now if clock time and the board could be frozen then this would be a simple question.

the fact that a person can deliver mate on the board after time has expired is a big factor.

the fact that the board says that player b is checkmated and so should win doesnt sit well with me when the clock also shows that time has run out.

i believe that the game should be declared drawn or replayed depending on time :oops:

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:54 PM
something that i dont think anyone has noticed in this circumstance is that because the clock and board are not connected, player A can deliver mate after the clock has hit zero and mate will still be on the board. Now if clock time and the board could be frozen then this would be a simple question.

the fact that a person can deliver mate on the board after time has expired is a big factor.

the fact that the board says that player b is checkmated and so should win doesnt sit well with me when the clock also shows that time has run out.

That has always been the case and has never been in doubt.
If players A's flag has been down for a while and player B has not noticed and player A then mates player B, then player A wins.
You may not like it but them's the rules.

What we have been discussing is where player A mates but player B claims a win on time.




i believe that the game should be declared drawn or replayed depending on time :oops:
Ok, when your the arbiter your opinion counts otherwise tough luck. ;)
Of course even as the arbiter your decision could get overturned on appeal. :(

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 03:56 PM
Look Bill, shut your fingertips alright. I'm getting all frustrated here. I can't help meself thinking I'm player B and doing a bit of a Michael Douglas. As far as I'm concerned, it's a G5 wherein time is of the essence. He's bloody lost on time. Period.

AR
I really hope you end up being player A and some dopey arbiter declares it a draw.
That will serve you right. :D :D ;)

Garvinator
22-01-2004, 04:08 PM
Ok, when your the arbiter your opinion counts otherwise tough luck. ;)

of course if i was arbiter my decision would be following the rules as they are written :D


Of course even as the arbiter your decision could get overturned on appeal. :(

appeal hey, couldnt that be removed :D ;)

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 04:15 PM
A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.

I believe the terminology is "made" vs "complete".

Once the requirements of Art 3 are satisfied the move is "made" (Article 4.7), once the clock is press the move is "complete" (Article 6.8 ).

To checkmate, stalemate, draw or enter a dead position the move simply needs to be "made". Although Article 6.8 also says the move is "considered complete" if it finishs the game.

Finishing the game can be more than checkmate or stalemate. Moves that can finish the game include drawn by repetition of position, drawn by 50 move rule or moves resulting in dead positions. Of course the draw claims can be difficult to prove in without a record of moves.
No this isnt correct.
The game is not automatically drawn after repetition of position or the 50 move rule. In all cases the player must make the claim AND stop his clock. If his flag has fallen before he claims he loses.
The interesting question here is what if he makes the claim, stops his clock but the flag has fallen.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 04:19 PM
A move is completed when a player presses his clock.
The only exception is checkmating and staemating moves when its when the hand releases the piece on the square.

I believe the terminology is "made" vs "complete".

Once the requirements of Art 3 are satisfied the move is "made" (Article 4.7), once the clock is press the move is "complete" (Article 6.8 ).

To checkmate, stalemate, draw or enter a dead position the move simply needs to be "made". Although Article 6.8 also says the move is "considered complete" if it finishs the game.

Finishing the game can be more than checkmate or stalemate. Moves that can finish the game include drawn by repetition of position, drawn by 50 move rule or moves resulting in dead positions. Of course the draw claims can be difficult to prove in without a record of moves.
No this isnt correct.
The game is not automatically drawn after repetition of position or the 50 move rule. In all cases the player must make the claim AND stop his clock. If his flag has fallen before he claims he loses.
The interesting question here is what if he makes the claim, stops his clock but the flag has fallen.

Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions. ;)

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 04:23 PM
Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions. ;)
Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.

Rincewind
22-01-2004, 04:26 PM
Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions. ;)
Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.

As there are no scoresheets in Blitz and Rapid, if or how can draw claims be made? (9.2 and 9.3 cannot be followed).

Are repetition and 50 move rules moot points without a scoresheet?

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 05:04 PM
Yes, you are right. So the only exception you left out was dead positions. ;)
Yes moves that create dead positions fall into the same category as checkmating or stalemating moves and occur as soon as the player releases the piece on the square.

As there are no scoresheets in Blitz and Rapid, if or how can draw claims be made? (9.2 and 9.3 cannot be followed).

Are repetition and 50 move rules moot points without a scoresheet?
In Blitz or rapid the repetition would need to be witnessed by the arbiter. If it was witnessed by a spectator(s) the arbiter would have to determine how reliable he believed them to be.

As for the 50 move rule this is virtually out of the question unless witnessed and counted by the arbiter.

Bob1
22-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Bill

Blitz only:

win / loss / draw

Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

Bob

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 06:39 PM
Bill

Blitz only:

win / loss / draw

Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

Bob
No Bob.
Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.

Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.

Bob1
22-01-2004, 07:11 PM
Bill

Blitz only:

win / loss / draw

Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

Bob
No Bob.
Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.



Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.

1: Semantics: ".... the players can appeal.............."
I assume you mean "either player may appeal"
I find it unlikely that a player that has lost would appeal if an arbiter declared him the winner!? - so this would mean your position only applies in th ecase of a draw decision and both players demand a result!

2: Assume 1 above is a red herring.
I assume that only the players of the board in question can appeal.

So I have two people in dispute over one game.

Generally I only have one person who feels that the wrong decision has been made.

What appeal process is open to him/her in the middle of a blitz event ?

Bill Gletsos
22-01-2004, 08:03 PM
Bill

Blitz only:

win / loss / draw

Arbiters decision is final ? - No Appeal?

Bob
No Bob.
Even in blitz the players can appeal the arbiters decision. This has definitely been the case since July 1997.

Only Article 10.2 and Article D are not appealable.



Prior to 1991 there was no appeal against the arbiters decision in lightning.

I'm not sure of the situtaion between 1991 and 1997.

1: Semantics: ".... the players can appeal.............."
I assume you mean "either player may appeal"
I find it unlikely that a player that has lost would appeal if an arbiter declared him the winner!? - so this would mean your position only applies in th ecase of a draw decision and both players demand a result!
I was assuming you wouldnt be so pedantic. ;)
Obviously it would be strange indeed for the winner to appeal the arbiters decision.


[: Assume 1 above is a red herring.
I assume that only the players of the board in question can appeal.
Not necessarily.

The game is between players A and B.
The arbiter rules A has won. This means A wins the competition.
Player C complains that the arbiter has got it wrong and that B should have won or maybe it should be a draw. If A does not win then Player D wins the comp or maybe ties with A.

Player D could appeal.

Given NSWCA has a Appeals Committee elected at its AGM, players in any NSWCA event can appeal to it at any time even after the event has concluded.
This of course could have major effects. In a previous NSW State Championship(non lightning) an appeal was lodged after the final round against the arbiters decision by a player of than the two players involved in the game.
The Appeals Committee unanimously upheld the appeal.
The arbiter was severely criticised by the Appeals committee on a number of points.


So I have two people in dispute over one game.

Generally I only have one person who feels that the wrong decision has been made.

What appeal process is open to him/her in the middle of a blitz event ?
They can demand of the arbiter that he sets up an appeals committee then and there.
A certain NSW player did this a few years back in the NSW State Lightning Championship.

Since then we have announced prior to the start of the NSW Lightning Championships just who the Appeals Committe is. If they players have any complaints about who the Appeals Committee mayb be that can lodge a complaint prior to the start. No one has ever done this. However because the majority of people at the lightning have been competing in the tournament the Appeals Committee has at times consited of just 1 person(that person being a member of the NSWCA Appeals Committee).

arosar
23-01-2004, 11:37 AM
Hey chaps. I'm interested in your thoughts. I quote from the latest Arbiter's Notebook:

"Question 2 In a regular game I had a King, Knight, and two pawns. My opponent only had a King. My opponent suddenly resigned as I was moving my King. I accepted his resignation and put the King back on the board, but did not look where I placed it.

A spectator then went to the arbiter and informed him that it was stalemate. My opponent declared that he had resigned, because his position was lost, but during the following discussion he changed his mind and claimed a draw. The arbiter agreed with him. The game was not replayed, because due to the time trouble the score sheets were not up to date. What is your opinion about these two cases?"

My view is that the resignation ended the game right there and then - pursuant to Article 5.1b. In his reply Gijssen does not cite this rule. This seems pretty straightforward, but any other opinions?

Actually, the incident reminded me a story in Aus Chess into the 80's. In a game between Johansen and Rogers (forgot the colour for the moment), Dazza picked up the Q, moved it to another square without releasing it, after further thought moved it back to what he thought was the Q's original square and released the piece. Rogers then just captured the Q. Apparently some people were very disgusted with the end of this game. Dazza had to resign as his error had to be considered a 'move'. I'll have to go home and dig up the details - but does any old timer recall this story at all?

May I say once again that people should buy Aus Chess into the 80's. It's up there with Zurich '53 and 2nd Piatigorsky.

AR

Bill Gletsos
23-01-2004, 12:04 PM
Hey chaps. I'm interested in your thoughts. I quote from the latest Arbiter's Notebook:

"Question 2 In a regular game I had a King, Knight, and two pawns. My opponent only had a King. My opponent suddenly resigned as I was moving my King. I accepted his resignation and put the King back on the board, but did not look where I placed it.

A spectator then went to the arbiter and informed him that it was stalemate. My opponent declared that he had resigned, because his position was lost, but during the following discussion he changed his mind and claimed a draw. The arbiter agreed with him. The game was not replayed, because due to the time trouble the score sheets were not up to date. What is your opinion about these two cases?"

My view is that the resignation ended the game right there and then - pursuant to Article 5.1b. In his reply Gijssen does not cite this rule. This seems pretty straightforward, but any other opinions?
Yes according to Article 5.1b the game ended immediately when the player resigned. Anything after that point is irrelevant.

Geurt seems more interested in what the player said or did not say to the arbiter than actually answering the question. However to be fair he does say
The arbiter only based his decision on the statement of a witness and it is clear that this is not correct

Unfortunately it is not clear whether he means the arbiters decision was incorrect or just the arbiter was incorrect in just basing it on a witness.

Rincewind
23-01-2004, 12:31 PM
I get the impression that Geurt thinks he is not getting the full story and wants to make sure of his facts before saying anything specific on the case.

I've seen him do this before, sometimes point blank refusing to comment on a question as he believes he is being set-up.

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 02:00 AM
Actually, the incident reminded me a story in Aus Chess into the 80's. In a game between Johansen and Rogers (forgot the colour for the moment), Dazza picked up the Q, moved it to another square without releasing it, after further thought moved it back to what he thought was the Q's original square and released the piece. Rogers then just captured the Q. Apparently some people were very disgusted with the end of this game. Dazza had to resign as his error had to be considered a 'move'.

Exactly the same involving a rook happened here on board 1 in the final round of a weekender a few years ago. The loser was in a winning position at the time and missed out on =1st which instead went to his opponent.

Kevin Bonham
24-01-2004, 03:50 PM
I think Barry's case is relatively straightforward and I agree with Bill - in general the player claiming the mate wins, the exception being where the player claiming the flagfall is certain but the player claiming the mate doesn't know. Even if A thinks he got the mate down in time I would give him the win.

I'm not sure if there's any objective reason based on prioirty for favouring the mate. Both checkmate on the board (before a flagfall) and flagfall (before a mate) end the game. However, favouring the player with mate on the board prevents more cheating possibilities. B can cheat if he is checkmated, notices A's flag has fallen, and then immediately lodges a time claim. Actually the flag could have fallen several moves ago so there is plenty of scope for cheating if B's claim is preferred or if B is even given a draw. A can only cheat if B notices a flagfall and claims it while A has mate in one on the board. This will happen, but a lot less often. Not giving A a win thus seems to be a more radical departure from the spirit of expecting a player to prove a flagfall before mate occurs.

Another thing. No matter what the players think about who claimed first, B must have stopped the clock, otherwise A wins. If B just says "time" that is not a valid claim and should be ignored.

arosar
27-01-2004, 11:14 AM
For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?

AR

arosar
27-01-2004, 11:21 AM
I think Barry's case is relatively straightforward and I agree with Bill - in general the player claiming the mate wins, the exception being where the player claiming the flagfall is certain but the player claiming the mate doesn't know. Even if A thinks he got the mate down in time I would give him the win.

Just quickly going back to Bazza's scenario - could we use 6.12 to enforce the mate? In other words, allow the game to continue normally anyway - hence, mate! Is this sound?

Btw, dunno if this has been addressed, now that we have a coaching accreditation programme thanks to Matty - is there an arbiter accreditation programme here too?

AR

Rincewind
27-01-2004, 01:44 PM
Just quickly going back to Bazza's scenario - could we use 6.12 to enforce the mate? In other words, allow the game to continue normally anyway - hence, mate! Is this sound?

No. Firstly both flags had not fallen so 6.12 does not apply. Secondly if both flag falls had occurred and a time claim made before the checkmate then the ruling would be a draw, not continue play (Article B overrules).


Btw, dunno if this has been addressed, now that we have a coaching accreditation programme thanks to Matty - is there an arbiter accreditation programme here too?

Good idea, perhaps a familiarisation course for players would be useful too. ;)

Rincewind
27-01-2004, 01:54 PM
For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?

The +30s means that the players are obliged to keep the scoresheet up-to-date, even with less than 5 minutes on the clock (Art 8.4)

I think I would judge the game be reconstructed on a second board using both players scoresheets and player A bring his scoresheet up to date in that process. Then warn player A that he should keep his scoresheet up to date henceforth and then restart the clocks. I don't think I would add time on to either of the clocks for the interuption, although would depend on the actual circumstances.

arosar
28-01-2004, 09:02 AM
Just saw this on FIDE's BB: "If there is mate, let there be mate. That is why we play."

AR

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 10:46 AM
Just saw this on FIDE's BB: "If there is mate, let there be mate. That is why we play."

As long as the mate isn't seen to late.

I was playing a endgame in a G30 game last night at the club. Q+R+B+2P v R+2P, Time Remaining 10 seconds v 25 minutes. The line between winning and losing is a fine one indeed.

Kevin Bonham
28-01-2004, 02:25 PM
For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at 33 secs and counting down for Player A; and at 4 mins 21 secs and counting down for Player B. The time control is 90m+30s (from 1).

Player B is a piece down and is clearly losing. Player B notices that Player A hasn't recorded the last 23 moves. Player B makes a move on the board and quickly stops the clocks, summons the arbiter and says, "He hasn't recorded the moves. I want him to update his scoresheet in his own time before he makes his next move".

You're the arbiter - what do you do? Would this particular TC affect your decision? Any other issues?

Very good question AR. I don't have much experience with this time control and it will probably show. I don't think A should get off with only a warning so if Barry's solution is adopted, B should get a time bonus. I would give B five minutes if I went that way - but I think that's letting A off a bit light anyway.

I have just timed myself copying 23 moves. It took me a minute and a half, or roughly four seconds for each move. However I am faster at writing moves than most people would be.

I don't think A deserves much mercy here. He has been breaking the rules over a long period, and if you add the time he's saved on he would have clearly lost on time, or else been forced to play faster.

If it was possible to supervise the game and B's scoresheet was clearly legible, I would require A to spend the first fifteen seconds of each subsequent move copying from his opponent's scoresheet until his own is up to date. That'll learn him, he won't do that again in a hurry. :D If he's good enough he still should be able to win.

This is the nearest equivalent I can think of to what I do in G90s, which is require the player to copy moves until he falls below 5 mins.

arosar
28-01-2004, 02:40 PM
Aaahh...your answer is better Mr Bonham.

When I deviced the question I had in mind some rule, in the Official Rules, that players can be instructed to update their scoresheets in their own time before making another move. But last night, after I'd played through some Wijk games I read the little blue book and, for the life of me, I couldn't bloody find the rule I had in mind. Maybe I just imagined it? Maybe an older rule? See now I'm stuffed without that rule because my own answer is to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move.

AR

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 03:14 PM
8.1 In the course of play each player is required to record his own moves and those of his opponent in the correct manner, move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, in the algebraic notation (Appendix E), on the 'scoresheet' prescribed for the competition.
A player may reply to his opponent's move before recording it, if he so wishes. He must record his previous move before making another. Both players must record the offer of a draw on the scoresheet. (Appendix E.12)
If a player is unable to keep score, an amount of time, decided by the arbiter, shall be deducted from his allotted time at the beginning of the game.

The reason I was not too harsh on A was that B didn't not make a complaint until A had not recorded 23 moves. It may have been that B didn't notice - but it is also possible that he did and decided not to make a claim until his position was lost and lots of moves had passed under the bridge. I would not want to encourage B's not to make complaints about their opponent failing to score and using it as a form of gamesmanship to help win a game (under appeal) on time.

arosar
28-01-2004, 03:24 PM
. . . It may have been that B didn't notice - but it is also possible that he did and decided not to make a claim until his position was lost and lots of moves had passed under the bridge. I would not want to encourage B's not to make complaints about their opponent failing to score and using it as a form of gamesmanship to help win a game (under appeal) on time.

Aha! You have grasp what I was actually aiming at. The problem for the arbiter is that there is no way for him to know this ['gamesmanship']. So I think it is fair to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move, no?
AR

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 03:37 PM
There are a number of issues that you would need to specify regarding if A has a history of "forgetting" to record moves or B has a record of using the same or similar forms of gamesmanship. But other things being equal I don't think A should be forced to lose the game on a first offense.

I don't like Kevin's proposal as it is messy, hard to implement and may be misunderstood by the players.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 06:13 PM
Aha! You have grasp what I was actually aiming at. The problem for the arbiter is that there is no way for him to know this ['gamesmanship']. So I think it is fair to instruct Player A to update his scoresheet before making another move, no?
AR
Artilce 8.4 states:

If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move, then he is not obliged to meet the requirements of Article 8.1. Immediately after one flag has fallen the player must update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard.

Article 8.5 states:

a. If neither player is required to keep score under Article 8.4, the arbiter or an assistant should try to be present and keep score. In this case, immediately after one flag has fallen, the arbiter shall stop the clocks. Then both players shall update their scoresheets, using the arbiter's or the opponent's scoresheet.

b. If only one player is not required to keep score under Article 8.4 he must, as soon as either flag has fallen, update his scoresheet completely before moving a piece on the chessboard. Provided it is the player's move, he may use his opponent's scoresheet, but must return it before making a move

c. If no complete scoresheet is available, the players must reconstruct the game on a second chessboard under the control of the arbiter or an assistant. He shall first record the actual game position, clock times and the number of moves made, if this information is available, before reconstruction takes place.

Article 8.4, and 8.5 both state that a player who legally has not been required to record his moves but now legally must, must bnring his score sheet up to date before he makes a move on the chessboard. This clearly means if it is the players move he cannot play a move and stop the clock until his scoresheet is up to date.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 06:39 PM
Article 8.4, and 8.5 both state that a player who legally has not been required to record his moves but now legally must, must bnring his score sheet up to date before he makes a move on the chessboard. This clearly means if it is the players move he cannot play a move and stop the clock until his scoresheet is up to date.

Both players have always been required to record all their moves, time control is G90+30s/move from move 1. Just one play has forgotten to record moves around 23 moves ago.

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 09:56 PM
Both players have always been required to record all their moves, time control is G90+30s/move from move 1. Just one play has forgotten to record moves around 23 moves ago.
I know what his question was. I wasnt attempting to answer it.

I was simply showing that if it is a players move and he was legally behind in recording his moves then he had to bring his score sheet up to date in his own time.

It therefore seems logical that if he has to do this on his own time when he was legally behind, then surely if it is the players move and he is illegally behind he must be required to bring it up to date also on his own time.

Rincewind
28-01-2004, 11:12 PM
I know what his question was. I wasnt attempting to answer it.

I was simply showing that if it is a players move and he was legally behind in recording his moves then he had to bring his score sheet up to date in his own time.

It therefore seems logical that if he has to do this on his own time when he was legally behind, then surely if it is the players move and he is illegally behind he must be required to bring it up to date also on his own time.

Well that explains my confusion.

I believe what you say might be right if one player does have a complete scoresheet. If neither player has a complete scoresheet wouldn't the arbiter normal stop the clocks and reconstruct the game on a separate board to ensure both players had accurate scoresheets and while doing so the clock would be stopped?

Bill Gletsos
28-01-2004, 11:26 PM
Well that explains my confusion.

I believe what you say might be right if one player does have a complete scoresheet. If neither player has a complete scoresheet wouldn't the arbiter normal stop the clocks and reconstruct the game on a separate board to ensure both players had accurate scoresheets and while doing so the clock would be stopped?
Barry, Barry, Barry.
You dont seem to be paying attention or maybe your tired. :wink:

I previously listed all of Article 8.5 where this situation is covered by section (a).

However my post above is covering the situation where only one player is in arrears, which is the case in AR's scenario.

jase
28-01-2004, 11:53 PM
Arosar - my opinion on the hypothetical situation where one player has not recorded for some 23 moves:

As stated already, the player has transgressed rule 8.1 - the player should be made to update the scoresheet before continuing.

But this will result in the loss of the game, as this player has only 33 seconds remaining. It is uncertain whether the opponent has only just observed the fact or is employing some gamesmanship.

I think we are agreed that if the offending player had some 4 minutes or more of time, they should be provided with the oppnent's scoresheet and instructed to update on their own time.

One might argue that this players should be dealt with as per 12.7: "Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game."

But as well as enforcing the laws of chess, the arbiter should ensure that tournaments are conducted in the right spirit. I do not believe therefore that an arbiter should enforce the loss of game.

I would have the offending player immediately update their scoresheet, at another table, penalise the offending player half their time [ie I would reduce their time to 17 seconds], and explain that further transgression in this regard will result in the loss of game. :naughty:

Additionally I would add a couple of minutes to the clock of the player who has maintained their scoresheet. I might also have a quiet word to this player after the game to suggest that he brings such matters to attention a little earlier :D

[sidebar: a player on the weekend offered a very generous compliment at the prizegiving, saying that he tries to always enter any tournament I run because of the goodwill and positive atmosphere of the event. I cannot verify his assertion, but I agree with the sentiment. I have a similar regard for Gary Bekker's officiating. Most tournaments in Sydney are conducted in clubs, and I have made it my custom to invite players for a drink after prizegivings :clap: ]

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 12:04 AM
Arosar - my opinion on the hypothetical situation where one player has not recorded for some 23 moves:

As stated already, the player has transgressed rule 8.1 - the player should be made to update the scoresheet before continuing.

But this will result in the loss of the game, as this player has only 33 seconds remaining. It is uncertain whether the opponent has only just observed the fact or is employing some gamesmanship.

I think we are agreed that if the offending player had some 4 minutes or more of time, they should be provided with the oppnent's scoresheet and instructed to update on their own time.

One might argue that this players should be dealt with as per 12.7: "Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game."

But as well as enforcing the laws of chess, the arbiter should ensure that tournaments are conducted in the right spirit. I do not believe therefore that an arbiter should enforce the loss of game.
I agree with your comments. :)


I would have the offending player immediately update their scoresheet, at another table, penalise the offending player half their time [ie I would reduce their time to 17 seconds], and explain that further transgression in this regard will result in the loss of game. :naughty:
Seems emminently reasonable to me.


Additionally I would add a couple of minutes to the clock of the player who has maintained their scoresheet. I might also have a quiet word to this player after the game to suggest that he brings such matters to attention a little earlier :D
As does this.


[sidebar: a player on the weekend offered a very generous compliment at the prizegiving, saying that he tries to always enter any tournament I run because of the goodwill and positive atmosphere of the event. I cannot verify his assertion, but I agree with the sentiment. I have a similar regard for Gary Bekker's officiating. Most tournaments in Sydney are conducted in clubs, and I have made it my custom to invite players for a drink after prizegivings :clap: ]
I'd agree with their observation. :clap:

jase
29-01-2004, 12:10 AM
I must conceed that very few players take up my offer to adjourn to the bar - usually about 3 or 4. For the Australia Day weekender, this is quite understandable, as by the time we had put the equipment away it was nearing 11:30pm. One of the prizewinners was among them on the weekend so I didn't even have to buy the first round :owned:

I will continue the practice in the hope of encouraging more socialising between the players [and enjoying the amber fluids...]

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 12:23 AM
I don't like Kevin's proposal as it is messy, hard to implement and may be misunderstood by the players.

Yes, you would need to commit an arbiter solely to supervising that game until the scoresheet issue is fixed, which is not always possible, and to making sure the players understand the solution. I don't think it's that hard to explain though, well, certainly simpler than Article 10.2. :eek:

If it's not possible, something like Jase's solution would be my preference.

One of the unfortunate differences between add-on games and flat games is that in an add-on the loss of "half your remaining time" doesn't actually cost you half your (genuinely) remaining time, it's actually only a fraction. It would be nice to be able to set the clock to reduce a player's subsequent add-ons in cases where such a penalty was considered warranted.

I've had a case myself where I only noticed an opponent had not been scoring several moves after they stopped, but it's true that some opponents will deliberately let it go for ages before complaining, when they really could have complained after 3 or 4 moves.

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 12:26 AM
It would be nice to be able to set the clock to reduce a player's subsequent add-ons in cases where such a penalty was considered warranted.

can this be done mid game?

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 12:32 AM
Barry, Barry, Barry.
You dont seem to be paying attention or maybe your tired. :wink:

I previously listed all of Article 8.5 where this situation is covered by section (a).

However my post above is covering the situation where only one player is in arrears, which is the case in AR's scenario.

Yeah, I know what you were talking about. I was talking about the situation when there was a claim that a player had to update his scoresheet when the other player's scoresheet was also not up to date.

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 12:42 AM
can this be done mid game?
Under the rules the arbiter is free to impose whatever penalty or condition he feels is warranted.

arosar
29-01-2004, 08:19 AM
Aaahh...I'm very glad you guys were provoked by my question. I read again the '97 and 2001 rules last night and I am satisfied that I can instruct Player A to update his schoresheet, pursuant to 8.1 - and thus he would lose.

As to jase's remarks about after-tourn drinks, this is a very good practice. It reminds me of some tourn in Germany that me mate Gerdell was telling me about. There's some blitz tourn apparently where they drink a round of beer after each round of chess. Good eh? Btw, everyone - I reckon North Sydney is an excellent venue. I notice that a Belgian Beer Cafe opened on Miller St, just 2 minutes from the club.

Cheers boys.

AR

PHAT
29-01-2004, 08:28 AM
As to jase's remarks about after-tourn drinks, this is a very good practice.
At last year's Wollongong Common Man tourni, the DOP (me) shouted the field. I expect that you will come and play in our 11 round rapid weekender and claim a beer.

arosar
29-01-2004, 08:29 AM
OK . . . when is the next one?

AR

PHAT
29-01-2004, 08:44 AM
OK . . . when is the next one?

AR

Under 2000 event
March 20/21
Swiss , 11 rounds , 30 minutes guillotine
Four rating divisions, Junior and Unrated.
Entry $45 , card $35 , junior $25


Scott Nicholson secured a $500 donation from BHP-Billiton for the junior prizes. This and the fact that we our club has a free venue, DOP, and expenses account, means that the entry fees are fully paid back in prizes.

Rincewind
29-01-2004, 09:29 AM
Aaahh...I'm very glad you guys were provoked by my question. I read again the '97 and 2001 rules last night and I am satisfied that I can instruct Player A to update his schoresheet, pursuant to 8.1 - and thus he would lose.

Please note that while Kevin, Jase and I all had different opinions on the severity of the penalty to apply to A - none were as severe as that. I'd suggest a more cautious approach lest you encourage players to not report an opponent failing to score immediately but keep it up their sleeve as an ace to be played if required in a scenario like the one you described.

However if that doesn't dissuade you, perhaps you should consider making this known to the players at the start of each event so at least the expectation is set. That will make the job of the appeals committee much easier. ;)

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 09:53 AM
Under the rules the arbiter is free to impose whatever penalty or condition he feels is warranted.
oh i see it now, final round final game all the spectators watching, the clocks have been changed to 15 sec increment for player A, 30 second for player B and then at about move 80, some of the spectators notice the difference and start asking Jase(in this case) about how come(of course not officially :p ).

I do have a rule question now. Let say the increment penalty was imposed. Player was getting 15 seconds per move and 30 seconds for Player B.

Would this then meant that Player A could stop recording when under 5 mins, or would Player A have to keep recording as they started the game with a 30 second increment?

arosar
29-01-2004, 10:09 AM
oh i see it now, final round final game all the spectators watching, the clocks have been changed to 15 sec increment for player A, 30 second for player B and then at about move 80, some of the spectators notice the difference and start asking Jase(in this case) about how come(of course not officially :p ).

Hhmm...I don't recall reading somewhere up there that someone suggested reducing the 'time added on' - but only 'time remaining' which is permissible in the rules. (See 13.4)


I do have a rule question now. Let say the increment penalty was imposed. Player was getting 15 seconds per move and 30 seconds for Player B.

I have a counter-question. Would this not directly affect the spirit of the game as it means an enduring imbalance vis-a-vis a one-off penalty? I would accuse the arbiter of bringing the game intro disrepute (and I have done this in the past, though now, it's just a laughing matter between us).


Would this then meant that Player A could stop recording when under 5 mins, or would Player A have to keep recording as they started the game with a 30 second increment?

Yes, stop recording - I think.

AR

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 10:15 AM
Hhmm...I don't recall reading somewhere up there that someone suggested reducing the 'time added on' - but only 'time remaining' which is permissible in the rules. (See 13.4)



I have a counter-question. Would this not directly affect the spirit of the game as it means an enduring imbalance vis-a-vis a one-off penalty? I would accuse the arbiter of bringing the game intro disrepute (and I have done this in the past, though now, it's just a laughing matter between us).



Yes, stop recording - I think.

AR
I think ill wait until Jase replies before responding, we could debate this for a day or so and then Jase comes on and corrects us both and all we have acheived is a higher post count :lol: hang on where was i again :p

Bill Gletsos
29-01-2004, 10:47 AM
I do have a rule question now. Let say the increment penalty was imposed. Player was getting 15 seconds per move and 30 seconds for Player B.

Would this then meant that Player A could stop recording when under 5 mins, or would Player A have to keep recording as they started the game with a 30 second increment?
The article is explicit. Provided he has a 30 sec increment he must record. Since the increment is only 15 he doesnt.

Note I was recommending the arbiter do this. I just noted that the arbiter can impose any penalty he likes. The penalty could be stupid. Of course if it is stupid then it would get overturned on appeal.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 04:33 PM
I have a counter-question. Would this not directly affect the spirit of the game as it means an enduring imbalance vis-a-vis a one-off penalty? I would accuse the arbiter of bringing the game intro disrepute (and I have done this in the past, though now, it's just a laughing matter between us).

What for? Cruel and unusual punishment? Seriously - this is an issue that's going to have to be tackled, how do you effectively penalise a player who is short of time but has substantial add-ons? Losing two of your four minutes on the clock in a G90/30 is a slap on the wrist compared to losing two of your four minutes in a G90 flat.

My suggestion about being able to cut the remaining add-ons was a bit flippant in this specific case, and is moot anyway because I don't believe most clocks would allow this to be done for just one player. Plus it is a bit silly if A's penalty for not scoring is a time control that allows him to not score. :doh: However I still like my original solution if it is practical.

I wouldn't forfeit A. I don't think forfeiting follows necessarily from the spirit of the Laws - yes he has persistently breached the Laws but he has not had a warning, normally forfeits for that are only applied after one or usually more warnings.

Good debate though. AR, did this situation actually happen, and if so what did the arbiter do?

arosar
29-01-2004, 04:53 PM
What for what? What I was saying was it does not seem right to reduce further from 30s to 15s. That's just inhumane. Better to be just brutal about it and force the guy to update his scoresheet with every likelihood that he could lose. But OK . . . that prolly wouldn't be right either.

No, it did not happen. But it could happen.

AR

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2004, 06:19 PM
What for what?

Sorry, I was asking (rhetorically) why it would be disrepute. To me letting him continue his game in any sense is less inhumane than forcing him to lose it - if he's getting 15 secs added on and a piece up he should still win if he was ever going to. Not that this matters as I don't think anyone here really supports this idea.

Garvinator
29-01-2004, 07:54 PM
Sorry, I was asking (rhetorically) why it would be disrepute. To me letting him continue his game in any sense is less inhumane than forcing him to lose it - if he's getting 15 secs added on and a piece up he should still win if he was ever going to. Not that this matters as I don't think anyone here really supports this idea.
I do actually support this idea. But my preferred solution most of all would be that player A has to update his/her scoresheet on their own time before playing their next move. But as everyone here has said, that is too dramatic.

Bob1
30-01-2004, 10:07 AM
I must conceed that very few players take up my offer to adjourn to the bar - usually about 3 or 4. For the Australia Day weekender, this is quite understandable, as by the time we had put the equipment away it was nearing 11:30pm. One of the prizewinners was among them on the weekend so I didn't even have to buy the first round :owned:

I will continue the practice in the hope of encouraging more socialising between the players [and enjoying the amber fluids...]
Maybe we could try the Paul Dozsa approach - before the start of round 1

george
02-02-2004, 03:52 PM
Hi All,

On a serious note I believe much more notice should be taken of Arbiters Reports following the conclusion of tourneys especially Junior Events where there are very young children playing.

Quite often from what I have seen Arbiters make excellent suggestions re length of games and number of games that young children should play - unfortunately even the ACF has noted the Arbiters reports then decided to adopt the status quo.

Perhaps it would be useful to debate how we could give Arbiters Reports more currency or in fact should we. If this has already been debated somewhere I do apologise.

Regards
George Howard

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 12:27 AM
I read every Arbiter's Report that ever gets into the public domain or to Council carefully and with great interest, but that doesn't mean I'll automatically vote for the recommendations that are made. Generally the arbiters know best and every such report I've ever seen has clearly had a lot of thought put into it. Sometimes, though, the arbiters' ideas of what the objectives of the tournament should be may differ from what some of us think should be the ACF's objectives in running it.

George, are you referring to the Aus Juniors number of rounds debate? That recommendation was one vote short of adoption last time on Council - how much of an issue was the event being 11 rounds rather than 9 rounds this time? I haven't seen it mentioned much so far on the BB. It's not a straightforward debate - it is probably far better for parents, arbiters and most children to have the Aus Juniors 9 rounds not 11, but the Aus Juniors is also supposed to be a serious event for the strong juniors competing for selection places, and it's struggling for selection relevance enough as it is even without any further watering down.

I was very undecided and eventually voted for no change last time (so yes, it's all my fault) but with the Aus Juniors seemingly becoming a less major event in prestige by the year, it's quite possible I would bow to the seemingly inevitable and vote for change if it came up again.

george
03-02-2004, 12:50 AM
Hi Kevin,

As I remember the vote to reduce the rounds to 9 was for the U12 only - this was because it was noted the quite a few of the young kids were especially tired and grumpy in the last couple of rounds and certainly not playing their best chess.

That was an observation of the Arbiters not mine , but I was willing to adopt the shorter number of rounds - the logic behind not having less rounds for the young kids was that they would have nothing to do for two days while the older kids in the group they came with , play on in their last two rounds.

This seemed to me to be faulty logic because if the kids needed to be found something to do that is a different issue than making them sit there for two days pushing wood because of tiredness - the other argument is that 11 rounds toughens them up for International Competition - the jury is out on that one but last tme as you say wiser heads prevailed maybe next time "commonsense" will prevail ( toughening up 8 +10 year old kids come on lets get the game in perspective). The NECG Squad can now be used to steel the superkids we dont have to inflict pain on average chess playing kids.

But maybe I am completely wrong - not the first time!

Regards
George Howard

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2004, 01:36 AM
I don't think you are wrong, George. Certainly not completely wrong anyway! Actually I was going to vote for it last time and only changed my mind because a number of strong counter-arguments came up at the last moment (an example of why we should make sure contentious stuff is flagged as contentious and debated by email or whatever between those concerned in advance). The supervision one (leaving children at a loose end) was never that relevant to me. As for getting the game into perspective people do take these things very seriously at quite an early age - 15 years ago I don't think anyone took their coach to the Australian Junior for instance. But yes the NECG squad is now a much more satisfactory avenue for those who want to take that route.

My feeling is that the motion if put again following the report from this event may pass, but I'd be interested to see anything other posters who may have some say in this want to add about it.

Bill Gletsos
03-02-2004, 12:43 PM
The NECG Squad can now be used to steel the superkids we dont have to inflict pain on average chess playing kids.
Of course it could be argued that although there may only be a few superkids, the majority of kids that play in the Aus Junior are not your "average chess playing" kids.

Chess Dad
03-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Of course it could be argued that although there may only be a few superkids, the majority of kids that play in the Aus Junior are not your "average chess playing" kids.


I agree, don't forget the NECG squad is limited to 20, I am sure we have far more than 20 serious kids Australia wide.

I would hate to think that because these other kids are not in the NECG squad they are not considered as "serious" or potentially "super kids" or at least "more than average" by the rest of the chess community. :sad:

jenni
03-02-2004, 03:23 PM
I agree, don't forget the NECG squad is limited to 20, I am sure we have far more than 20 serious kids Australia wide.

I would hate to think that because these other kids are not in the NECG squad they are not considered as "serious" or potentially "super kids" or at least "more than average" by the rest of the chess community. :sad:

Unfortunately a limit of 20 was put on NECG, because of financial and organisational constraints. I think the first 9 who were selected really stood out and were hard to go past, but after that there will definitely be more than 11 who would do very well in the squad and sad that some of them will be eliminated.

I hope that those kids who do miss out, will not view it as a condemnation of their ability, but instead become really motivated to improve in order to get into the squad in 2005. The intent of the squad was not to benefit just 20 kids, but that its existence would motivate maybe 50 or 100 kids to work on their chess.

The squad was always "revolving door", so you are only in for a year and have to be able to keep your place against other improving juniors the following year.

I think you only have to look at the number of upsets that occurred (and always do occur), in the Aus Juniors, to know that we have a large number of talented kids in Australia - not just 20.

As far as number of rounds go - I think 9 rounds for the under 12's would be fine - they are always very tired in the last few rounds. I think 11 is necessary for the under 18s (unless it gets separated into under 14, under 16 etc, in which case a smaller number of rounds would work as well).

Many parents support a shorter Aus Juniors, because of the impact on work and family holidays. However in my experience it is normally "newer" parents who want this. As we get more experienced we realise the necessity of the 11 rounds and kind of grit our teeth and put up with it.

jase
03-02-2004, 11:18 PM
Hhmm...I don't recall reading somewhere up there that someone suggested reducing the 'time added on' - but only 'time remaining' which is permissible in the rules. (See 13.4)


Sorry for delay in response - had missed this point.
13.4.c states that the arbiter may "reduce the remaining time of the offending player".

The Laws of Chess are regularly updated, but have largely been prescribed for conditions prior to the popularity of increments. Perhaps some specific clauses covering increments, especially with regard to the imposition of penalties, are warranted.

My interpretation of 13.4 is that the arbiter may adjust the time increment for a player. As has been argued elsewhere on this thread, docking time under a TC that offers 30 second increments is a lesser penalty than under guillotine conditions [though I do think the psychological effect + setting an example remains of significance].

With DGT clocks it is possible to have different increments for player A and player B. I am unsure a clock can be adjusted mid-game, however another clock can easily be set appropriately.

It would always be problematic to reduce a player's increment from 30 seconds, as this would remove the onus of recording for that player.

Therefore I think, for this example, that it is possible but not advisable.

arosar
10-02-2004, 09:19 AM
If I observe a player to be sick - not necessarily breaking out in rashes and that - am I able to eject him from the tournament or not accept his entry? In one or two tourneys I've seen/heard players cough quite loudly as if their friggin' lungs are about to fall out. These people always concern me. You'd think that arbiters/organisers have a duty of care, wouldn't you? So what has been your experiences you blokes?

AR

ursogr8
10-02-2004, 09:41 AM
If I observe a player to be sick - not necessarily breaking out in rashes and that - am I able to eject him from the tournament or not accept his entry? In one or two tourneys I've seen/heard players cough quite loudly as if their friggin' lungs are about to fall out. These people always concern me. You'd think that arbiters/organisers have a duty of care, wouldn't you? So what has been your experiences you blokes?

AR

AR

We, umm, called an ambulance once, and umm, arranged for CPR from another player, and umm, stopped the clocks for a while.
Seemed to go over OK with the guy with the difficulty; he bought us a bottle of wine on release from hospital.
Yes, we felt we should do something.

starter

PHAT
10-02-2004, 10:53 AM
Scott Nicholson (a Kiwi) says that he was at a touni in NZ where a bloke dropped dead face first on to the board.

[I wonder if his opponent wins by default or resignation?]

arosar
20-02-2004, 03:45 PM
Is Swissperfect recognised by FIDE? Does it even have to be?

AR

Kevin Bonham
20-02-2004, 07:56 PM
Back near the start of this thread (on this board) Barry asked about the case where there are conflicting claims of mate and flagfall in blitz with no witness. Bill and I both thought this was a win for the player claiming mate, some others differed. In Geurt Gijssen's column this week the following very similar case of a conflicting claim of illegal move and flagfall was made:

During a blitz tournament, the following situation arose: With only a few seconds left, I completed my move and then realised that it was illegal. My opponent did not see it and began to think. Suddenly he made to capture my king, but before he could his flag fell. I immediately stopped the clock and claimed a win while he captured my king. I believe I stopped the clock before he touched my king.
Now both of us claimed a win and to my astonishment the arbiter awarded my opponent the full point. I thought that I had won because my opponent did not complete his move or, at least, that the point should be split. The arbiter argued that my opponent didn't need to stop the clock in such a case.

(a) How would you decide?
(b) Is it necessary to complete ones move in order to have a valid claim?
(c) I can't find any rule in the FIDE laws of chess that is applicable to this situation. In my opinion, the player who first makes a valid claim should win the game, and if the claims are made simultaneously the game should be drawn. Is this correct?

Geurt's response:

Answer 1 Article C3 states:

An illegal move is completed once the opponent's clock has been started. However, the opponent is entitled to claim a win before making his own move. If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves with the most unskilled counterplay, then he is entitled to claim a draw before making his own move. Once the opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected.

I agree with the arbiterís decision. Although the Laws of Chess do not adequately describe what to do in such cases of two competing claims, it is generally accepted that what happens on the board, in this case the completion of an illegal move, has preference above what happens next to the board (the flag fall).

samspade
25-02-2004, 10:05 PM
sorry Bill. I reckon I'm with Bazza on this - though I'd be a little more decisive and declare the game a draw. I just don't like to waste my time and other people's. If I were one of the players I'd simply offer a draw too.

It just doesn't seem right to award a full point to Player A. Let's hope you won't be an arbiter when I'm Player B cos I just about reckon you'd make me quite upset with you mate. I think you're wrong in your reasoning and Bazza was right to characterise this as "one player's word against anothers's".

Whaddya other fellaz reckon?

ARI heard there was once a game in some major lightning tournament where the pieces had been progressively whacked off the board accidentally in a time scramble and at the end there were no pieces on the board but because one of them had run out of time the other was declared the winner, sometimes I can't help thinking that some of these decisions are, well, a bit arbitrary... :eh:

samspade
25-02-2004, 10:45 PM
If I observe a player to be sick - not necessarily breaking out in rashes and that - am I able to eject him from the tournament or not accept his entry? In one or two tourneys I've seen/heard players cough quite loudly as if their friggin' lungs are about to fall out. These people always concern me. You'd think that arbiters/organisers have a duty of care, wouldn't you? So what has been your experiences you blokes?

ARHey that reminds me of something-don't the guidelines[ACF I think] say one player is not permitted to distract another player - even if the distraction is not deliberate, if it is bad enough(eg severe hiccups) the arbiter needs to take some sort of action?

I've had someone with a really bad cold playing me-I put up with it, ended up losing:mad: . A couple of players I won't name are shocking fidgeters. But I think that's different from what Amiel was saying-he was talking health grounds etc whereas I'm thinking distraction grounds

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 11:23 PM
I'm thinking it's all a bit hard for me-I'd just hope it doesn't happen to me... I heard there was once a game in some major lightning tournament where the pieces had been progressively whacked off the board accidentally in a time scramble and at the end there were no pieces on the board but because one of them had run out of time the other was declared the winner, sometimes I can't help thinking that some of these arbitrary decisions are, well, rather arbitrary... :eh:

Yep, I was there, that was the Solomon-Smerdon game in the last round of the 2002-3 Aus Lightning in Melbourne. Both were very short of time and were moving and hitting the clock so fast that the pieces were falling off the table until suddenly Solomon ran out of time with Smerdon having two seconds left and an empty board in front of them. Players shook hands and accepted the result as if this was all completely normal without the arbiter even having to intervene. One of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 11:32 PM
Hey that reminds me of something-don't the guidelines[ACF I think] say one player is not permitted to distract another player - even if the distraction is not deliberate, if it is bad enough and long-lasting enough(eg if severe hiccups) the arbiter needs to take some sort of action?

That's in the Laws of Chess. (Art 12.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever). And yes, if it's bad enough it doesn't matter if it's deliberate.

I had to referee an extremely ugly incident once involving a player who had the habit of grunting after making his move. I hope I never have to deal with one of those cases again.


I've had someone with a really bad cold playing me-I put up with it, ended up losing . A couple of players I won't name are shocking fidgeters. But I think I'm straying from what Amiel was saying-he was talking health grounds etc whereas I'm thinking distraction grounds

Yep. On the health issue I suggest AR looks at Article 13.2: "The arbiter shall act in the best interests of the competition He should ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and the players are not disturbed." I take that as giving the arbiter clear power to exclude a contagiously ill player on health grounds, provided that it is in the interests of the competition. Certainly you would exclude a player with Ebola. I would consider excluding a player with a cold or flu who was not making efforts to minimise the risk to other players, eg who persisted in sneezing all over the board despite repeated warnings.

Garvinator
26-02-2004, 10:14 AM
Certainly you would exclude a player with Ebola.
I would want to know how that player got in the country with ebola :eek:

arosar
26-02-2004, 10:52 AM
Certainly you would exclude a player with Ebola. I would consider excluding a player with a cold or flu who was not making efforts to minimise the risk to other players, eg who persisted in sneezing all over the board despite repeated warnings.

And I'd certainly exclude from the comp a player who is coughing loudly. I mean, how many times have we seen, or rather heard, these people? They're a worry, lemme tell ya!

AR

Kevin Bonham
26-02-2004, 03:53 PM
And I'd certainly exclude from the comp a player who is coughing loudly. I mean, how many times have we seen, or rather heard, these people? They're a worry, lemme tell ya!

Seems fine to me to at least threaten these guys with expulsion if they don't find a way to cough more quietly. That may be a distraction issue though.

Fidgeting juniors with ADHD or similar are another common distraction issue.

arosar
26-02-2004, 04:09 PM
Man . . . I'm not talking standard cold cough. I'm bloody talking about 'wake the dead' coughing. I heard this in one of the Rose Bay tourns. What a worry!

AR

jase
26-02-2004, 09:56 PM
Man . . . I'm not talking standard cold cough. I'm bloody talking about 'wake the dead' coughing. I heard this in one of the Rose Bay tourns. What a worry!


Amiel, you are a master of hyperbole and invention. I have arbitered these Rose Bay tournaments, and suggest there was no such offence as you claim.

We did have one player who sniffled rather loudly during a round because he had a cold. I'm no master of cultural affairs, however I am aware that in some cultures it is considered bad form to address hygene issues [eg nasal congestion] in public.


Some fellow players admonished him quite severely during the round [I later did the same to them :rolleyes: ] and had a quiet word with the player in between rounds.

frogmogdog
28-02-2004, 09:54 AM
got a couple of touch move/promotion questions.

1. is a promotion move not completed until the piece is released? i.e. can someone pick up a queen and place it on the board with a finger still touching it, realise this is a blunder and then change it to another piece?

2. is it official that upturned rooks are queens? i.e. could someone (i'd help lynch them) claim a win on illegal move in blitz when their opponent moves their upturned rook along a diagonal?

thanks in anticipation!

Bill Gletsos
28-02-2004, 10:05 AM
got a couple of touch move/promotion questions.

1. is a promotion move not completed until the piece is released? i.e. can someone pick up a queen and place it on the board with a finger still touching it, realise this is a blunder and then change it to another piece?
The promoted piece cannot be exchanged once the piece actually makes contact with the chessboard.




2. is it official that upturned rooks are queens? i.e. could someone (i'd help lynch them) claim a win on illegal move in blitz when their opponent moves their upturned rook along a diagonal?
It is illegal move and loses. If the player requires a piece that is unavailable they should stop the clocks and summon the arbiter.

Perhaps allowing upturned rooks is ok for kiddie games but it certainly should not be allowed in adult competitions.

PHAT
22-03-2004, 04:18 PM
This is not what happened but we would like to know what the DOP should rule.

30 minute rapid play.
Black has Ke5 and Bc3.
White has a pawn a7 and Ke3.
Black has 2 seconds on his clock.
It is white to move but white's flag falls.

Can white claim a draw because black has insufficient material?

(I say no.)

Rincewind
22-03-2004, 04:35 PM
This is not what happened but we would like to know what the DOP should rule.

30 minute rapid play.
Black has Ke5 and Bc3.
White has a pawn a7 and Ke3.
Black has 2 seconds on his clock.
It is white to move but white's flag falls.

Can white claim a draw because black has insufficient material?

(I say no.)

The rule is...

6.10 Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

I think White could promote to a light-squared bishop and then be help mated by Black so it should be a win for Black.

Machiavelli
22-03-2004, 05:04 PM
Since the flag had fallen, my ruling is that White has lost on time, since a checkmate could be constructed. If however, the White player had stopped his clock with less than two minutes on his or her clock, he or she could have legitimately claimed a draw under rapid play rules, applicable wherever no increment exists.

Alan Shore
22-03-2004, 05:37 PM
Machi's right, white can claim the draw but only before his flag falls. (Personally I detest the current laws, I'd like to switch to internet rules where 1 Bishop or 1 Knight is never enough to win).

Machiavelli
22-03-2004, 06:13 PM
You're right Bruce, it is rather absurd. That said, the advent of incremental time limits has meant that this ruling is starting to become redundant.

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2004, 06:13 PM
The rule is...

6.10 Except where Articles 5.1 or one of the Articles 5.2 (a), (b) and (c) apply, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay.

I think White could promote to a light-squared bishop and then be help mated by Black so it should be a win for Black.
Even if the pawn had been on b7 and not a7, its not a problem what color square the White Pawn will promote on.

Just promote the Pawn to a Knight.
A mating postition can be constructed where a K & N mate a K & B.

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2004, 06:17 PM
You're right Bruce, it is rather absurd. That said, the advent of incremental time limits has meant that this ruling is starting to become redundant.
Of course in Blitz 10.2 is irrelevant whether there are increments or not.

PHAT
22-03-2004, 06:32 PM
...If however, the White player had stopped his clock with less than two minutes on his or her clock, he or she could have legitimately claimed a draw under rapid play rules, applicable wherever no increment exists.

Which rapid play rule(s).

Rincewind
22-03-2004, 06:34 PM
Even if the pawn had been on b7 and not a7, its not a problem what color square the White Pawn will promote on.

Just promote the Pawn to a Knight.
A mating postition can be constructed where a K & N mate a K & B.

You'd need a position where K+B mate a K+N. I don't know off the top of my head if this is possible but I suspect not. Happy to be correct though if anyone knows how this is done.

PHAT
22-03-2004, 06:36 PM
Of course in Blitz 10.2 is irrelevant whether there are increments or not.

So, does a 30 minute rapid game have to be played by Blitz rules where 10.2 cannot be invoked?

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2004, 06:36 PM
You'd need a position where K+B mate a K+N. I don't know off the top of my head if this is possible but I suspect not. Happy to be correct though if anyone knows how this is done.
Its possible.
White: Kg6, Bg7
Black:Kh8, Ng8

Machiavelli
22-03-2004, 06:41 PM
Which rapid play rule(s).

I was simply saying that rapid play, which incorporates all time controls from 15 to 59 minutes does not fall under the same rulings as those in force for Blitz, which is 0 to 14 minutes on the clock.

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2004, 06:47 PM
Which rapid play rule(s).
Article 10.2

Bill Gletsos
22-03-2004, 06:50 PM
So, does a 30 minute rapid game have to be played by Blitz rules where 10.2 cannot be invoked?
No, Matt.
In a rapid provided there is no increment 10.2 always applies.

By definition a 30 minute game is a Rapid hence 10.2 applies.

Now also since the Rules Commission meeting at the Olympiad in Bled, a 30 min game + 10sec from move 1 is also a Rapid. However since there is an increment involved 10.2 does not apply.

A Blitz is anything under 15 mins.
Also from the same rukes commission decision, a game of 3 mins +2 secs a move is also Blitz.
However an increment in Blitz makes no difference, because Artilce C4 of the Bllitz rules explicitly states that Article 10.2 does not apply.

Rincewind
22-03-2004, 08:56 PM
Its possible.
White: Kg6, Bg7
Black:Kh8, Ng8

Yes, of course. It's easier than I thought. :doh: The problem (I thought) was that the knight might be able to block the diagonal but not when the bishop is adjacent to the king. Thanks for the example. :D

Kevin Bonham
22-03-2004, 10:50 PM
Machi's right, white can claim the draw but only before his flag falls. (Personally I detest the current laws, I'd like to switch to internet rules where 1 Bishop or 1 Knight is never enough to win).

I think these limits are silly. There are legitimate positions, however rare, that could arise from real games where a single piece had realistic chances of winning, if not an actual forced win.

It always amazes me that some players will whine about losing on time because their opponent retains one minor piece but consider it's perfectly fair to win on time with, say, a single blocked rook's pawn that has as much chance of becoming a queen as Fred Nile has of becoming a progressive thinker. They also have no problems if the opponent's flag falls with an easy forced mate in a few on the board.

If you're going to restrict it you need a more general subjective rule I think, such that a player cannot win on time in a whole range of different overwhelmingly lost positions. Frankly the cost of having such extra subjectivity in the Laws doesn't seem worth it, just get over it, if you are short on time you must eliminate all opposing material. If you can't do that, claim a draw or risk losing. I fail to see why this is such a big deal.

Machiavelli
22-03-2004, 11:04 PM
Well, claiming a draw is possible in Rapid, but but about in Blitz games? If one has 30 seconds to the 45 seconds of another person in a dead drawn position, we have the absurd situation wherein a player may not be able to make the 50 moves to force the draw (or in a tournament with many games going on, cannot prove it even if 50 moves have been made) but will instead be flagged by his or her opponent. We also have the situation wherein a player could possibly be starting to move when the opponent has not made his or her move - that is, playing the move over the board and pressing the clock. I must admit that I have been guilty of this, with the majority of all other chess players. What can be done to police such a situation if not to award a draw in such clearly absurd situations.

I know of people who have been accused of flagging their opponents for some 30 seconds in a K + R v K + R finish, and who have hence been labelled as bad sports. But if this is the ruling, why is this the fault, when they are simply playing within the gamete of the rules?

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 12:26 AM
What can be done to police such a situation if not to award a draw in such clearly absurd situations.

If one player offers a draw and the other refuses, just step in and use the disrepute rule, which is applicable to blitz. (If both players are happy playing on to see whose flag falls first let them.) Certainly the DOP doesn't have to let someone play for a flag in KR vs KR unless there's a forced win or a risk of one developing on the board.

Anyone know what the "longest shortest" win for KR vs KR is (ie the position with the most moves required to either force mate or capture of opposing rook with a won position)? I can't imagine it's more than a few moves long. Curiously in KQ vs KQ there is this (hey Jeo, well done on the pgn/fen combo):

1.Kd2+ Ka2 2.Qg8+ Ka3 3.Qa8+ Kb2 4.Qb7+ Ka3 5.Qa6+ Kb2 6.Qb5+ Ka3 7.Qa5+ Kb2 8.Qb4+ Ka2 9.Kc2 Qd1+ 10.Kxd1

so you would want to be a bit careful about stepping in in something like KQ vs KQ because forced wins that aren't obvious can show up at times.

Machiavelli
23-03-2004, 09:21 AM
There's a disrepute rule applicable in such a situation? I must admit, I was unaware of this.

Rincewind
23-03-2004, 09:40 AM
There's a disrepute rule applicable in such a situation? I must admit, I was unaware of this.

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

Applicable in all forms of chess and can be invoked by arbiters to outlaw all sorts of shenanigans. The trouble with it is consistency of application.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:23 AM
I think these limits are silly. There are legitimate positions, however rare, that could arise from real games where a single piece had realistic chances of winning, if not an actual forced win.

It always amazes me that some players will whine about losing on time because their opponent retains one minor piece but consider it's perfectly fair to win on time with, say, a single blocked rook's pawn that has as much chance of becoming a queen as Fred Nile has of becoming a progressive thinker. They also have no problems if the opponent's flag falls with an easy forced mate in a few on the board.

If you're going to restrict it you need a more general subjective rule I think, such that a player cannot win on time in a whole range of different overwhelmingly lost positions. Frankly the cost of having such extra subjectivity in the Laws doesn't seem worth it, just get over it, if you are short on time you must eliminate all opposing material. If you can't do that, claim a draw or risk losing. I fail to see why this is such a big deal.
I agree, I don't see that it is such a big deal.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 12:02 PM
We also have the situation wherein a player could possibly be starting to move when the opponent has not made his or her move - that is, playing the move over the board and pressing the clock. I must admit that I have been guilty of this, with the majority of all other chess players.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above.

The following sequence is perfectly legal.
Player A pickups up a piece and moves it.
Player A releases the piece. Player A has not yet pressed his clock.
Now at the point that player A released his peice, it is entirely legal for Player B to touch one of his own pieces and start to move it.
Player B can in fact release his own piece prior to Player A still having touched the clock.
Now the critical point is even if Player B press's his clock prior to Player A having yet pressed his clock, Player A is entitled under Artilce 6.8 to always be allowed to stop his clock. Therefore if Player B presses his clock before Player A has, Player A can still stop his own clock and start player B's and Player B would then have to restart Player A's.
Note it is entirely illegal for Player B to not allow Player A to press his clock in the above sequence.


I know of people who have been accused of flagging their opponents for some 30 seconds in a K + R v K + R finish, and who have hence been labelled as bad sports. But if this is the ruling, why is this the fault, when they are simply playing within the gamete of the rules?
Although it is within the rules, it could be argued that such behaviour is not in the spirt of the game. After all, one would expect two GM's to agree to a draw in this situation irrespective of the times remaining on their clocks.
In the K + R V K + R example above the problem could be as follows:
Player A won't accept players B's draw offer.
Player B's flag falls so player A claims a win on time.
Player B complains to the arbiter.
Now the arbiter could rule under Article 12.1 that player A's behaviour has brought the game into disrepute and therefore declare that he receives only half a point under article 13.4(e) and he could increase Player B's score to also receive half a point under Article 13.4(f).


To complicate it further, it could also be argued that Player B should have complained to the Arbiter prior to his losing on time. In that case awarding a half point to both players would be reasonable. However since he only complained after losing on time, the Arbiter could still enforce Article 12.1 against Player A and strip him of the point entirely leaving him with a zero but also still leave Player B with a zero.

Of course its also possible that neither Player A or Player B offer a draw because they are both equally short of time and both are trying to win the ending simply on the clock. Whoever loses on time then tries complaining to the arbiter. If both players knew the Arbiter under the circumstances I described above would use Article 1.2 and Articles 13.4(e) and (f) to award zero points to both players then this would hoopefully help to cut out this sort of behaviour.


As you can see its not quite as simple as it may seem. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 01:03 PM
If there was no draw offer and no complaint before flagfall in an even and trivially drawn position where both sides can still mathematically win, like KR vs KR, I would let the win on time stand, but inform the loser that he has the right to complain in such situations.

If there was a rejected draw offer but no complaint and I was not watching the game I would let the win stand but also warn the opponent that refusing draw offers in such positions is a breach of the disrepute rule. In blitz it is very important to complain when the opponent does something wrong.

If there was a complaint before flag fall with no draw offer I would immediately step in and award a draw.

If there was a rejected draw offer followed by a complaint before any flag fall I would step in, award a draw, and warn the opponent under the disrepute rule.

If I was watching the game and there was a draw offer which was rejected I would immediately step in and award a draw, and warn the opponent under the disrepute rule, without waiting for a complaint.

If the opponent offended in the same way in another game after being warned I would declare the second case a loss for them and a draw for their opponent.

If the players were playing on in a position of this kind but where only one side could win and it might be considered dubious etiquette for the weaker side to offer a draw (eg KNN vs K where there was no mate and the players had any skill at all) I would just step in and award the draw without waiting for any offer or complaint.

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 02:59 PM
The following sequence is perfectly legal.
Player A pickups up a piece and moves it.
Player A releases the piece. Player A has not yet pressed his clock.
Now at the point that player A released his peice, it is entirely legal for Player B to touch one of his own pieces and start to move it.
Player B can in fact release his own piece prior to Player A still having touched the clock.

Hi Bill, I wasn't aware that Player B was allowed to do this, in blitz or any other form of chess. I was under the impression that it is illegal to touch or move anything until the opponent has completed his move, which includes pressing the clock.

Still, I'm willing to stand corrected. I couldn't find anything in Fide Online
except for 6.8 a):

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game.

I can imagine a scenario in a blitz game: Player A makes an illegal move and lets go of the piece, but he hasn't yet pressed his clock. Player B, meanwhile, starts making his move. Player A realises he has made an illegal move and tries to play a legal move in accordance with the touch move rule, which he is perfectly entitled to do. Player B has now completed his move. Player A now doesn't know what position he's supposed to be retracting his move from etc, etc.

No wonder I don't play in blitz tournaments any more. Sydney is particularly notorious for the number of blitz cheats we have.

Machiavelli
23-03-2004, 03:13 PM
Again, like Greg, I was under the impression that a move constitutes making the move AND pressing the clock, though I could very well wrong.

This rule came into effect, about 5 years ago, when I was playing a critical Board 1 game in the NSW Junior Championship in Round 6, where the time limit was 40 moves in 90 minutes, followed by 30 minutes to finish. Playing with the analogue clocks at that point in time, I had made my move before the flag had fallen, but had failed to press the clock down until just after my flag dropped. Under Bill's interpretation of the rules, this would suggest that I did not actually lose on time. It would seem that the rules are far easier to apply if Greg's interpretation of the rules is the legitimate one.

arosar
23-03-2004, 03:14 PM
Yeah Greg, I agree with your interpretation of the rule. In fact, even in park chess we enforce this rule, when we take the time to notice it being broken anyways. I believe Bill's mate, Gijssen agrees with Bill. Anyways, we can safely ignore their interpretation.

Now about this remark of Sydney having lotsa blitz cheats. What's all that about mate? Give us an example of what these cheats do. I take it you've played elsewhere and you observe that Sydneysiders are bigger cheats then eh?

And oh mate, one of your biggest fans mate is now away from chess. He practically worshipped you this fella. I'm trying to get him back into it. But even his own cynicism at chess is infecting my thoughts.

AR

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 03:36 PM
Hi Machiavelli, I assume your flag fell on move 40 and not after the 30 minute add-on. If so, it's clear that you have lost on time since you have not fully completed 40 moves with your flag still up. I'm further assuming that your last move didn't deliver physical checkmate or stalemate on the chessboard, in which case it is a completed move.

I can find nothing in Fide's Appendix C dealing with blitz that would suggest the rules for the legal completion of a move would be any different from standard chess.

Machiavelli
23-03-2004, 03:42 PM
Yep, you're right at all points, Greg. It was the legitimate decision definitely, though matters are obscured somewhat under Bill's understanding of the rules.

It's never a nice way to lose a game, especially one that was that important, but it was nonetheless a valuable experience and a lesson to be learnt for future games.

Regards,
Machiavelli

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 03:45 PM
Hi Bill, I wasn't aware that Player B was allowed to do this, in blitz or any other form of chess. I was under the impression that it is illegal to touch or move anything until the opponent has completed his move, which includes pressing the clock.

Still, I'm willing to stand corrected. I couldn't find anything in Fide Online
except for 6.8 a):

During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock. A player must always be allowed to stop his clock. His move is not considered to have been completed until he has done so, unless the move that was made ends the game.


Hi Greg,

This whole thing comes down to FIDE's use of the words "completed", "move has been made", touched a piece", etc in various areas of the rules.


Thus the sequence of a move is:
1) A player touches a piece. Lets keep this simple and assume he touches one of his own pieces. A piece is considered touched when a player deliberately touches a piece with the intention of moving it.
2) The player then moves his peice to a square and releases the piece. The move is now considered to "have been made". Unless the move is illegal, the player can no longer retract or change his move.
3) If the move in 2) ended the game under artciles 5.1 or 5.2 then stopping the clock is irrelevant.
4) The move did not end the game then the move is then considered to be complete when the player stops his clock. Note in Blitz it is not until this has occurred that a player can claim a win via illegal move.

Now the issue of when an opponent is able to reply to a players move is covered by the last sentence of Article 1.1 which states: "A player is said to 'have the move', when his opponent's move has been made.

Note the FIDE Rules commission deliberately changed Article 1.1 in the 2001 Laws to say "has been made". In the preceding rules (FIDE 1997) the wording was "has been completed".


I can imagine a scenario in a blitz game: Player A makes an illegal move and lets go of the piece, but he hasn't yet pressed his clock. Player B, meanwhile, starts making his move. Player A realises he has made an illegal move and tries to play a legal move in accordance with the touch move rule, which he is perfectly entitled to do. Player B has now completed his move. Player A now doesn't know what position he's supposed to be retracting his move from etc, etc.
Yes, that can be confusing.


No wonder I don't play in blitz tournaments any more. Sydney is particularly notorious for the number of blitz cheats we have.
No comment. ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 03:47 PM
Again, like Greg, I was under the impression that a move constitutes making the move AND pressing the clock, though I could very well wrong.
You are incorrect see my reply to greg.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 03:48 PM
Yeah Greg, I agree with your interpretation of the rule. In fact, even in park chess we enforce this rule, when we take the time to notice it being broken anyways. I believe Bill's mate, Gijssen agrees with Bill. Anyways, we can safely ignore their interpretation.
Then you are a goose.

I am stating the interpretation of the Rules Commission not any individual Arbiters.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 03:50 PM
Hi Machiavelli, I assume your flag fell on move 40 and not after the 30 minute add-on. If so, it's clear that you have lost on time since you have not fully completed 40 moves with your flag still up. I'm further assuming that your last move didn't deliver physical checkmate or stalemate on the chessboard, in which case it is a completed move.
I agree with this.


I can find nothing in Fide's Appendix C dealing with blitz that would suggest the rules for the legal completion of a move would be any different from standard chess.
There is no difference.

arosar
23-03-2004, 04:01 PM
Then you are a goose.

I am stating the interpretation of the Rules Commission not any individual Arbiters.

I knew you'd resort to this kinda name calling. You're way too easy Bill. You don't really believe that you intimidate anyone, do you Bill? Cos you know I got news for you mate: you're only a NSWCA prez mate.

AR

Machiavelli
23-03-2004, 04:01 PM
You are incorrect see my reply to greg.

I'm not doubting the correctness of your analysis of the rules, but if a move is completed when your hand is off the piece, doesn't that mean that in my game where I had moved the piece and taken my hand off it (but had not pressed down the clock), doesn't that mean that I have actually completed the 40 moves before my flag technically fell?

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 04:01 PM
Yeah Greg, I agree with your interpretation of the rule. In fact, even in park chess we enforce this rule, when we take the time to notice it being broken anyways. I believe Bill's mate, Gijssen agrees with Bill. Anyways, we can safely ignore their interpretation.

Now about this remark of Sydney having lotsa blitz cheats. What's all that about mate? Give us an example of what these cheats do. I take it you've played elsewhere and you observe that Sydneysiders are bigger cheats then eh?

AR

Amiel, not sure of the Gijssen reference as I didn't read the entire thread too closely.

Can't name names here as far as blitz cheats go of course, but there would be at least 10 well-known players I could name in NSW who are repeat offenders and are incorrigible as far as the rules go. Their attitude is: the only rule in blitz is to get away with whatever you can. If any other city would like to claim more than Sydney, then feel free. :eek:

Some examples of cheating in blitz, which I see time and time again in blitz tournaments in Sydney:
* Deliberately placing a piece in between two squares to confuse the opponent and to have an each-way bet on your next move. A famous example of this is taking 4 moves to promote a pawn from the second rank, a specialty of one particularly notorious blitz cheat.
* Starting to play a move when the opponent hasn't even set the piece down, let alone pressed the clock. This really gets my goat, which is why I was so surprised by Bill's interpretation of the rules.
* Continuing to play after knocking pieces over, instead of fixing the position on their own time.


And oh mate, one of your biggest fans mate is now away from chess. He practically worshipped you this fella. I'm trying to get him back into it. But even his own cynicism at chess is infecting my thoughts.

All I can say is, if he worshipped me, it's no wonder he's away from chess. :)

arosar
23-03-2004, 04:11 PM
* Continuing to play after knocking pieces over, instead of fixing the position on their own time.

Man, you're way too nice mate. I notice this about you actually. You're a gentleman and a scholar mate. But listen, in blitz - you gotta intimidate your opponent. See us in the park. We're all mates. But when we play, it's like we're blood enemies since time immemorial.

I recall even our good mate Maccha here was staring down a NSW junior at a NSWCA event some months back. I thought, gee . . . this guy's got friggin' balls.

Mate, I reckon I know one of 'em cheats you're talkin about. I'll prolly lose to him more games but I'll do me best to scare the crap out of him mate.

AR

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 04:12 PM
Hi Greg,

This whole thing comes down to FIDE's use of the words "completed", "move has been made", touched a piece", etc in various areas of the rules.


Thus the sequence of a move is:
1) A player touches a piece. Lets keep this simple and assume he touches one of his own pieces. A piece is considered touched when a player deliberately touches a piece with the intention of moving it.
2) The player then moves his peice to a square and releases the piece. The move is now considered to "have been made". Unless the move is illegal, the player can no longer retract or change his move.
3) If the move in 2) ended the game under artciles 5.1 or 5.2 then stopping the clock is irrelevant.
4) The move did not end the game then the move is then considered to be complete when the player stops his clock. Note in Blitz it is not until this has occurred that a player can claim a win via illegal move.

Now the issue of when an opponent is able to reply to a players move is covered by the last sentence of Article 1.1 which states: "A player is said to 'have the move', when his opponent's move has been made.

Note the FIDE Rules commission deliberately changed Article 1.1 in the 2001 Laws to say "has been made". In the preceding rules (FIDE 1997) the wording was "has been completed".

Hi Bill, thanks for this and, yes, I do stand corrected.

It's amazing that I didn't notice that "has been completed" had been changed to "has been made" when the 2001 Laws came out. Now I really feel like a goose. :)

I have to say I don't agree with this rule when it comes to blitz, but I will moderate my view of blitz players who make a reply before a move has been "completed" but after a move has been "made" :(

Garvinator
23-03-2004, 04:46 PM
having read all this i have been surprised by a few things ;) but it just seems to me that the simpliest solution of all is, if you have any doubts in a game of blitz, stop the clock and scream for the arbiter :lol:

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 05:14 PM
I'm not doubting the correctness of your analysis of the rules, but if a move is completed when your hand is off the piece, doesn't that mean that in my game where I had moved the piece and taken my hand off it (but had not pressed down the clock), doesn't that mean that I have actually completed the 40 moves before my flag technically fell?
I did not say the move is completed when you hand releases the piece.
I said the move was made.
As I explained to Greg their is a difference between when a move is made and when it is completed.
With regards to your 40th move, as Greg pointed out you must stop your clock and your flag must still be up.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 05:17 PM
I knew you'd resort to this kinda name calling. You're way too easy Bill. You don't really believe that you intimidate anyone, do you Bill? Cos you know I got news for you mate: you're only a NSWCA prez mate.

AR
I wasn't trying to intimidate you at all.
I was simply calling you a goose because you chose to argue from a position of ignorance where you have no knowledge of the rules.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 05:19 PM
Hi Bill, thanks for this and, yes, I do stand corrected.

It's amazing that I didn't notice that "has been completed" had been changed to "has been made" when the 2001 Laws came out. Now I really feel like a goose. :)
No, your not a goose. It was an easy thing to overlook unless you had been following the Rules Commission decision.


I have to say I don't agree with this rule when it comes to blitz, but I will moderate my view of blitz players who make a reply before a move has been "completed" but after a move has been "made" :(
I think you will find all the really "great" blitz players take advantage of this situation. ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 05:29 PM
Some examples of cheating in blitz, which I see time and time again in blitz tournaments in Sydney:
* Deliberately placing a piece in between two squares to confuse the opponent and to have an each-way bet on your next move. A famous example of this is taking 4 moves to promote a pawn from the second rank, a specialty of one particularly notorious blitz cheat.
Yeah a number of well known "cheats" do this.
It really requires their opponets to be on the ball and when the "cheat" does this their opponent should immediately restart their clocks and tell them to adjust the piece. Of course this is easier said than done, as the cheat is just as likely to ignore the fact their opponent has not made a move and the cheat then just makes another move. Continual offenders should be dealt with by the arbiter under article 12.1.


* Starting to play a move when the opponent hasn't even set the piece down, let alone pressed the clock. This really gets my goat, which is why I was so surprised by Bill's interpretation of the rules.
I have explained the reasoning for this in a previous reply.


* Continuing to play after knocking pieces over, instead of fixing the position on their own time.
Yes, once again the only course open to the opponent is to immediately start the "cheats" clock and insist he fixes it up before restarting the opponents clock. Again like the situtaion above with pieces on multiple squares, the Arbiter really needs to deal with continual offenders under Artcile 12.1.

Its only because opponents let the "cheats" get away with this and the Arbiters fail to take enough action against the perennial "cheats" that the "cheats" persist.

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 06:23 PM
Its only because opponests let the "cheats" get away with this and the Arbiters fail to take enough action against the perennial "cheats" that the cheats persist.

Bill you forgot to use inverted commas in your last use of the word cheats. :doh:

Anyway, running a blitz tournament must be a nightmare for an arbiter, especially an arbiter not 100% au fait with the latest rules. My hat's off to you guys. :clap:

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 06:35 PM
Bill you forgot to use inverted commas in your last use of the word cheats. :doh:
Thanks, I fixed it. :)


Anyway, running a blitz tournament must be a nightmare for an arbiter, especially an arbiter not 100% au fait with the latest rules. My hat's off to you guys. :clap:
It can be difficult when the tournament involves a number of "cheats".

Garvinator
23-03-2004, 06:48 PM
It can be difficult when the tournament involves a number of "cheats".
and combined with ppl who call for an arbiter for anything :whistle:

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 07:30 PM
Bill, I want to really home in on why the Fide Rules Commission in 2001 made the distinction between moves being 'made' and 'completed'. It seems to me the original reason was only because of the 'terminal' move, i.e. a move that delivers checkmate or stalemate [or a 'mutually non-checkmateable' position], regardless of the clock.

So now it's legal to start playing moves before your opponent has pressed the clock. A commonsense application of this would be when a player simply forgets to press the clock. But I maintain that because of the example I gave earlier, where a player in blitz has the right to change an illegal move that is made but uncompleted, it is ridiculous to allow the opponent to move in this situation. I'm just saying that the Rules Commission has stuffed up on this one.

Sure, I realise that "great" blitz players will take advantage of this rule (not to mention not-so-great players). In blitz, you have to continually anticipate your opponent's reply and be moving your hand towards a piece before they've pressed the clock. I'm just saying it should be illegal to touch or move a piece before the opponent has pressed the clock.

This just seems like commonsense to me, so again, I'm truly dumbfounded by the Rules Commission's decision.

Alan Shore
23-03-2004, 08:49 PM
I have an unrelated question: I was playing in a rapid tournament, and I was going to claim a draw by three-fold repetition (was one move away but my opponent played a different move so it didn't come into the equation - the game ended in a draw from perpetual check). Anyway, at the time, I informed by opponent it was the second repetition of postition, when a certain Grandmaster interjected and told me I can't claim a draw from three-fold repetition in rapid. Is he right or wrong?

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 10:18 PM
Greg, I was a bit surprised by that change too. I have no idea why it was made, but it has one clear benefit: at slower time limits sometimes an opponent releases the piece then forgets to press the clock. Many players feel uncomfortable waiting for the opponent to remember to press it, and some would rather just get on with the game. However if you can't move when your opponent has made but not completed a move, then you just have to sit there until they wake up, which is silly, because they've had their chance to press their clock and didn't take it. Under the new 1.1, once your opponent has taken their hand off the piece, you can move whenever you like, even if they forget to press the clock.

Of course, hardly anyone forgets to press the clock in blitz.

Bill (or anyone else), if A makes a move, B makes a reply taking his hand off the piece and then A tries to press the clock to complete A's previous move (without making a move himself first), would you rule that out of order?

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 10:20 PM
Bill, I want to really home in on why the Fide Rules Commission in 2001 made the distinction between moves being 'made' and 'completed'. It seems to me the original reason was only because of the 'terminal' move, i.e. a move that delivers checkmate or stalemate [or a 'mutually non-checkmateable' position], regardless of the clock.
Hi Greg,
This all gets fairly complicated and the root cuase of the porblem is back in the gradual changes over the years to the Laws of Chess by FIDE.

The whole problem here stems from the Laws of Chess well before 1985.

FIDE had been fairly loose with their use of the trems "made a move" and "completed a move".
Back then FIDE used to divide the Laws of Chess into two Parts. Part 1: General Rules and Part 2: Supplementary Laws for Competitions.
Now all the Artciles were numbered differently then to the way they are numbered now.

Back then Article 4 described the Conduct of the Game. Article 4.2 said : A player is said to 'have the move' when it is his turn to play. Article 7 was called Completion of the Move. Essentially it said the move was completed when a player let go of the piece. All these were in Part 1 of the laws. Now in part 2 Article 14 basically said the last move of a time control was not considered to be completed until after a player stopped his clock.

Therefore all moves were completed when a players hand left the piece, except for the move that was the last move of the time control. A player could therefore start to make his move as soon as his opponent had released his piece and prior to starting the players clock.

In 1985 FIDE got rid of the two sections and also changed the Article numbering and Article 3 was now The Right to Move. 3.2 said: A player is said to 'have the move' when his opponent's move is completed. Now Article 6 covered The Completeion of the Move. Essentially as previously a move was completed when a player released his hand from the piece. Article 6 now also covered the situation regarding last moves of the time control. Like in previous versions a time control move was only considered completed once the clock had been stopped.

Therefore the situation was still the same as before where all moves were completed when a players hand left the piece, except for the move that was the last move of the time control. So it was still allowed for a player to start to make his move as soon as his opponent had released his piece and prior to starting the players clock.

This remained pretty much the same until FIDE and rewrote all the rules in 1997.

Now here they tried to really be consistent with the terms "made the move" and completed the move" and even where they mentioned "touched pieces".

Article 1.1 now covered when a player had the move and it was the same as 3.2 above. Article 6.7(the current Article 6.8) now mentioned that the move was not completed until a player had stopped his clock, except when the game had previously ended(by checkmate or stalemate, etc).

Now by a strict reading of the laws this could be interpreted to mean that a player could no longer start to make a move until a player's oppoent had stopped his clock and not just released the piece as was the previous case.
However this consequence was not the intention of the FIDE Rules Commission. They had overlooked this possibility.

Therefore in when the new FIDE laws took effect in 2001 they rectified this problem by changing the words of Article 1.1 to read as they do now and say a player "has the Move" when his opponent's move has been made.

So hopefully that explains the situation sufficiently.


So now it's legal to start playing moves before your opponent has pressed the clock. A commonsense application of this would be when a player simply forgets to press the clock. But I maintain that because of the example I gave earlier, where a player in blitz has the right to change an illegal move that is made but uncompleted, it is ridiculous to allow the opponent to move in this situation.
This has always been the case. Basically the onus is on the player who is going to reply to the illegal move to ensure that he does not make a move until the player who made the illegal move presses his clock or retracts the illegal move.


I'm just saying that the Rules Commission has stuffed up on this one.
I'm not so sure thats the case.


I'm just saying it should be illegal to touch or move a piece before the opponent has pressed the clock.
That has never been the case as far as the rules are concerned.


This just seems like commonsense to me, so again, I'm truly dumbfounded by the Rules Commission's decision.
Hopefully my discussion on the background to this has cleared up any confusion.

Rincewind
23-03-2004, 10:21 PM
I have an unrelated question: I was playing in a rapid tournament, and I was going to claim a draw by three-fold repetition (was one move away but my opponent played a different move so it didn't come into the equation - the game ended in a draw from perpetual check). Anyway, at the time, I informed by opponent it was the second repetition of postition, when a certain Grandmaster interjected and told me I can't claim a draw from three-fold repetition in rapid. Is he right or wrong?

You can most certainly claim. Whether you can substatiate your claim depends on a number of factors and without a scoresheet that task is more difficult. But draw by repetition is still a valid claim in Rapid or even Blitz.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 10:26 PM
Greg, I was a bit surprised by that change too. I have no idea why it was made, but it has one clear benefit: at slower time limits sometimes an opponent releases the piece then forgets to press the clock. Many players feel uncomfortable waiting for the opponent to remember to press it, and some would rather just get on with the game. However if you can't move when your opponent has made but not completed a move, then you just have to sit there until they wake up, which is silly, because they've had their chance to press their clock and didn't take it. Under the new 1.1, once your opponent has taken their hand off the piece, you can move whenever you like, even if they forget to press the clock.
Thats a good point kevin.


Bill (or anyone else), if A makes a move, B makes a reply taking his hand off the piece and then A tries to press the clock to complete A's previous move (without making a move himself first), would you rule that out of order?
No because, according to Article 6.8 (a) Player A has every right to stop his clock.
In fact if they are using a time control with an increment it is necessary for Player A to press his clock go gain the increment. Likewise since Player A had not stopped his clock then Player B if after making his move actually attempts to stop his clock and start A's this will have no effect because B's clock was not running hence Player B never got his increment.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 10:28 PM
I have an unrelated question: I was playing in a rapid tournament, and I was going to claim a draw by three-fold repetition (was one move away but my opponent played a different move so it didn't come into the equation - the game ended in a draw from perpetual check). Anyway, at the time, I informed by opponent it was the second repetition of postition, when a certain Grandmaster interjected and told me I can't claim a draw from three-fold repetition in rapid. Is he right or wrong?

Wrong. However if you are not scoring (some players score rapids, most don't) you run a very high risk of having your claim disallowed for lack of evidence if your opponent disputes it and the arbiter did not see it. If the arbiter witnesses the triple rep the arbiter can uphold the claim. If there is a forced perpetual the player will often be able to repeat it with the arbiter watching even if the arbiter did not initially see it.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 10:30 PM
You can most certainly claim. Whether you can substatiate your claim depends on a number of factors and without a scoresheet that task is more difficult. But draw by repetition is still a valid claim in Rapid or even Blitz.
The claim is valid however the onus is on you to provide proof.
If an Arbiter is present then there is no problem. He can rule on the validity of the claim.
If there is no Arbiter and no score sheet then an Arbiter would generally rule against the claim.

An Arbiter may decided to reject the claim even if there were witnesses.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 10:37 PM
No because, according to Article 6.8 (a) Player A has every right to stop his clock.
In fact if they are using a time control with an increment it is necessary for Player A to press his clock go gain the increment. Likewise since Player A had not stopped his clock then Player B if after making his move actually attempts to stop his clock and start A's this will have no effect because B's clock was not running hence Player B never got his increment.

So suppose both players being down to below 5 mins in a game where the increment is too small to require scoring decide to "barrage" the opponent by playing a series of moves as fast as possible, you might then get a situation where having done so they then exchange a number of clock presses so they get their increments - very confusing. I guess you could give them a warning for something, but 6.8a doesn't actually say they have to press the clock right away. I have quite often seen players forget to press the clock in time scrambles in non-increment games.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 10:48 PM
So suppose both players being down to below 5 mins in a game where the increment is too small to require scoring decide to "barrage" the opponent by playing a series of moves as fast as possible, you might then get a situation where having done so they then exchange a number of clock presses so they get their increments - very confusing. I guess you could give them a warning for something, but 6.8a doesn't actually say they have to press the clock right away. I have quite often seen players forget to press the clock in time scrambles in non-increment games.
Ok, I see what you are getting at.
Article 6.8(a) is really there I believe to protect the player from an opponent who is actually trying to blitz him and not allow him to press the clock rather than where a player simply forgets to press it.

In the following scenario:
1) Player A makes a move does not press his clock.
2) Player B makes a move and presses the clock.
3) Player A touches a piece.

Now I believe that as soon as Player A touched a piece in 3) above he loses the right to stop the clock for when he failed to do so back in 1).

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 11:01 PM
Article 6.8(a) is really there I believe to protect the player from an opponent who is actually trying to blitz him and not allow him to press the clock rather than where a player simply forgets to press it.

Yes, that's my view too. You are always allowed to press your clock but does that mean you can't forfeit that right by forgetting (or refusing)?

Incidentally in increment games where a player needs his opponent to press the clock so the increments run smoothly I imagine a player who keeps forgetting (accidentally or on purpose) should be appropriately dealt with.


In the following scenario:
1) Player A makes a move does not press his clock.
2) Player B makes a move and presses the clock.
3) Player A touches a piece.

Now I believe that as soon as Player A touched a piece in 3) above he loses the right to stop the clock for when he failed to do so back in 1).

I was wondering if this can be extended to the case where A does not touch a piece but B is not blitzing (A simply forgot). Doesn't seem to be clearly spelt out at all.

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 11:16 PM
Greg, I was a bit surprised by that change too. I have no idea why it was made, but it has one clear benefit: at slower time limits sometimes an opponent releases the piece then forgets to press the clock. Many players feel uncomfortable waiting for the opponent to remember to press it, and some would rather just get on with the game. However if you can't move when your opponent has made but not completed a move, then you just have to sit there until they wake up, which is silly, because they've had their chance to press their clock and didn't take it. Under the new 1.1, once your opponent has taken their hand off the piece, you can move whenever you like, even if they forget to press the clock.
Kevin, not sure what you're getting at here, since I was the one who pointed out that this is an obvious justification for being able to play a move before the opponent has pressed the clock in non-blitz games. Of course, if you feel uncomfortable about your opponent's failure to press the clock, there are several ways to relieve your discomfort: you could tell the arbiter, or you could just sit there and hope he doesn't notice (if you want to win a game of chess that way), or you could go to the pub for half an hour until he notices, or god forbid, you could actually tell your opponent that he hasn't pressed the clock.


Of course, hardly anyone forgets to press the clock in blitz.

And of course this IS what I'm talking about.

Alan Shore
23-03-2004, 11:17 PM
Wrong. However if you are not scoring (some players score rapids, most don't) you run a very high risk of having your claim disallowed for lack of evidence if your opponent disputes it and the arbiter did not see it. If the arbiter witnesses the triple rep the arbiter can uphold the claim. If there is a forced perpetual the player will often be able to repeat it with the arbiter watching even if the arbiter did not initially see it.


OK good, I thought he was wrong :) That's why I announced the second rep, to substantiate my (possible) claim. Funny that a G didn't know the rules though.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:28 PM
I was wondering if this can be extended to the case where A does not touch a piece but B is not blitzing (A simply forgot). Doesn't seem to be clearly spelt out at all.
FIDE made a very interesting and deliberate change to the rules in 2001.

In the 1997 rules the last sentence of Article 13.6 said "The Arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has made a move, or that he has failed to press his clock."

In the 2001 rules that sentence now reads "The Arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move."

An Arbiter may now point out to a player that he has forgotten to press his clock. This is particularly important where an increment is used.

Rincewind
23-03-2004, 11:28 PM
OK good, I thought he was wrong :) That's why I announced the second rep, to substantiate my (possible) claim. Funny that a G didn't know the rules though.

That's nothing. Wasn't there a famous case of a visit GM in Melbourne protesting that his opponent castled queenside. The basis for the complaint was that the b1/8 square was under attack.

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 11:33 PM
Hopefully my discussion on the background to this has cleared up any confusion.

Bill, thanks for your considerable research on this matter.

My original point stands.

A player is now allowed to play a move before the opponent has pressed the clock. In blitz, a player is allowed to retract an illegal, uncompleted move, Therefore both players are legally allowed to make chess moves on the chessboard at the same time.

Don't feel bad, Bill, that I exposed a glaring deficiency in FIDE rules, after all I wasn't attacking you. It's only if you continue to defend this state of affairs that I will call you a goose.

Alan Shore
23-03-2004, 11:36 PM
That's nothing. Wasn't there a famous case of a visit GM in Melbourne protesting that his opponent castled queenside. The basis for the complaint was that the b1/8 square was under attack.

Haha! Then again there are the opposites, the complete bookbashers on the rules.. how many of you know of the famous 'triple check' incident? If you don't know it, I might set up the position tomorrow.

Alan Shore
23-03-2004, 11:39 PM
An Arbiter may now point out to a player that he has forgotten to press his clock. This is particularly important where an increment is used.

That's a ridiculous rule - it should completely fall under the responsibility of the player to press his clock. Can there be any possible justification for this rule???

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:39 PM
Bill, thanks for your considerable research on this matter.

My original point stands.

A player is now allowed to play a move before the opponent has pressed the clock. In blitz, a player is allowed to retract an illegal, uncompleted move, Therefore both players are legally allowed to make chess moves on the chessboard at the same time.

Don't feel bad, Bill, that I exposed a glaring deficiency in FIDE rules, after all I wasn't attacking you.
I realise that Greg.
I was just explaining what the Laws of Chess actually say and mean.

I can appreciate the problem. I'm just not sure how you would reword the Blitz rules to cater for the situation.


It's only if you continue to defend this state of affairs that I will call you a goose.
I'm not defending it per se, I'm explaining it.
There is a difference. ;)

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:45 PM
That's a ridiculous rule - it should completely fall under the responsibility of the player to press his clock. Can there be any possible justification for this rule???
I just gave you a reason. Its particularly important when an increment is used.
Ir is important that a player presses his clock when an increment is used otherwise he not only does not get the increment he cheats his opponent out of the increment when his opponent makes his move.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:49 PM
That's nothing. Wasn't there a famous case of a visit GM in Melbourne protesting that his opponent castled queenside. The basis for the complaint was that the b1/8 square was under attack.
I don't know about a GM in Melbourne but apparently Korchnoi once asked an arbiter if he could castle queenside even though b1/b8 was under attack.
His response when told yes by the arbiter was something like, "I've never had the situation arise before."

Alan Shore
23-03-2004, 11:53 PM
I can see how that's justifiable with incremental time at say for example, a 40 move period, yes. If it was a flate rate of time with inc per move, say 60 10, then the arbiter should be keeping quiet in my books.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2004, 11:54 PM
Kevin, not sure what you're getting at here, since I was the one who pointed out that this is an obvious justification for being able to play a move before the opponent has pressed the clock in non-blitz games.

Sorry, just blatant brain fade there, reading too fast and missed that bit.


Of course, if you feel uncomfortable about your opponent's failure to press the clock, there are several ways to relieve your discomfort: you could tell the arbiter, or you could just sit there and hope he doesn't notice (if you want to win a game of chess that way), or you could go to the pub for half an hour until he notices, or god forbid, you could actually tell your opponent that he hasn't pressed the clock.

I usually wave a hand at the clock the first few times, but I give up eventually. Saying it out loud isn't my preference at all - could distract other players and in my experience it is best to avoid all unnecessary talking between players because of the risk of incidents. Telling the arbiter's too much bother for all concerned. Sitting there hoping he doesn't notice is only an option for those who want to win because the opponent hasn't pressed the clock, many don't. I've even had cases where an opponent fails to press the clock then gets up and leaves the table, so I can't exactly point at the clock.

The difference between legal and illegal moves is interesting, but I look at it like this. Once a player makes an illegal move in blitz and presses the clock, the opponent's clock is ticking and there's no way to fix this situation and go back without either the opponent being disadvantaged or the player possibly getting extra time to analyse (which especially isn't on in blitz). Therefore having pressed the clock the player deserves to be penalised - in the blitz case by loss of the game. If they've taken their hand off an illegal move but haven't pressed the clock, then there's no reason for not allowing them to correct it - it's only their own time they are wasting. However with a legal move, once you've taken your hand off it it is impossible for you to change it.

So I don't think it's inconsistent, whether it's practically fair is another question. I haven't really seen enough real blitz demons in action to get a feel for it and I'm a pretty awful blitz player myself so I'll follow the comments of others (including those you made before) on this with interest.

Rhubarb
23-03-2004, 11:56 PM
Bill, I agree you were explaining the rules, not defending them, at least in my discussion with you. I hope that Fide resolves this issue.

I'd like to say that this is a non-trivial rule, because I believe it strikes at the very heart of what is and isn't legal in the practical application of blitz chess.

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:58 PM
I can see how that's justifiable with incremental time at say for example, a 40 move period, yes. If it was a flate rate of time with inc per move, say 60 10, then the arbiter should be keeping quiet in my books.
According to you then with a time limit of 90 mins + 30secs a move from move 1 the Arbiter should be quiet.
However its in this circumstance that the player and his opponent are deprived of the increment if the player forgets to press his clock.
It is especially for this scenario that the rule exists.

Also there is an argument that the game should not be decided by the fact that a player simply forgets to press his clock

Bill Gletsos
23-03-2004, 11:59 PM
Bill, I agree you were explaining the rules, not defending them, at least in my discussion with you. I hope that Fide resolves this issue.

I'd like to say that this is a non-trivial rule, because I believe it strikes at the very heart of what is and isn't legal in the practical application of blitz chess.
I'm not aware of any plans that FIDE have to change this.

I should note that I have not seen or heard of any problem actually arising due to this situation in the Blitz rules.

Alan Shore
24-03-2004, 12:12 AM
According to you then with a time limit of 90 mins + 30secs a move from move 1 the Arbiter should be quiet.
However its in this circumstance that the player and his opponent are deprived of the increment if the player forgets to press his clock.
It is especially for this scenario that the rule exists.

Also there is an argument that the game should not be decided by the fact that a player simply forgets to press his clock

How is anyone deprived? You simply wait until he presses his clock (how ever many minutes elapse until the goose realises), or you can be the nice guy and tell him.

As for the game being decided by time, in a 90 30 game, I hardly think it's going to make a difference. In a say, 5 10 game, it certainly will - and the game can well be decided by a player forgetting to press his clock - his bad luck for not being able to do something so simple.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2004, 12:19 AM
A player is now allowed to play a move before the opponent has pressed the clock. In blitz, a player is allowed to retract an illegal, uncompleted move, Therefore both players are legally allowed to make chess moves on the chessboard at the same time.

Ah, but we have been round this block before here - although your comment adds a useful extra dimension because it supports my interpretation (which I'm not sure all were too happy about at the time). Article 4.7 says "When as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled"

When a move is illegal all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have not been met and therefore taking the hand off the piece does not mean the move has been formally "made". So the opponent is not allowed to move a piece in response until the correction is made, unless the illegal move goes unnoticed. (There is a problem in 7.4a where reference is made to an illegal move being "made", when really I think that should say "completed", but in blitz this does not matter as 7.4a doesn't apply).


It's only if you continue to defend this state of affairs that I will call you a goose.

Now this is going to be fun to watch. :p

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 12:21 AM
How is anyone deprived? You simply wait until he presses his clock (how ever many minutes elapse until the goose realises), or you can be the nice guy and tell him.
Player A may not press his clock. Player B may not realise Player A has not pressed his clock. Player B makes a move and presses his clock. Player A now makes a move and presses his clock.
In the above sequence both player A and Player B have been deprived of the increment.


As for the game being decided by time, in a 90 30 game, I hardly think it's going to make a difference.
Whether it makes a difference could all depend on when the failure to press the clock occurs and at what stage the increment is lost.


In a say, 5 10 game, it certainly will - and the game can well be decided by a player forgetting to press his clock - his bad luck for not being able to do something so simple.
The argument from the Rules Commission is that it should not be decided by the simple fact that a player forgot to press his clock.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 12:23 AM
Now this is going to be fun to watch. :p
As I said to Greg, I wasn't defending it just explaining it. ;)

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2004, 12:38 AM
The argument from the Rules Commission is that it should not be decided by the simple fact that a player forgot to press his clock.

Can I channel AR for a moment and just call them a bunch of hippies? If a player forgets to press their clock they should quite simply lose the game, much as they should lose if they forget to turn up before midday when the start time is 10:30, or much as they should lose if they forget that 2.g4 doesn't refute From's Gambit. I see the point in the case of increments but I don't see why the arbiter should generally have to serve as a kind of nanny for players who can't learn and handle such a basic requirement reliably - unless the player has a documented medical short-term memory problem.

Rincewind
24-03-2004, 12:39 AM
I don't know about a GM in Melbourne but apparently Korchnoi once asked an arbiter if he could castle queenside even though b1/b8 was under attack.
His response when told yes by the arbiter was something like, "I've never had the situation arise before."

Perhaps I mangled the story. I think the version I heard there was some communication issue between the GM and the arbiter. (GM spoke very little English and arbiter did not speak the GM's language). I only vaguely remember reading it in an Australian magazine some years ago and I don't feel inclined to do a manual literature search of my collection (meagre though it is, only going back to c.1989). :(

Alan Shore
24-03-2004, 12:40 AM
Player A may not press his clock. Player B may not realise Player A has not pressed his clock. Player B makes a move and presses his clock. Player A now makes a move and presses his clock.
In the above sequence both player A and Player B have been deprived of the increment.

B wouldn't be pressing his clock if it were already pressed - and (they would both have realised by now if they hadn't before) they can always both hit the clock one more time to make up for it :p



The argument from the Rules Commission is that it should not be decided by the simple fact that a player forgot to press his clock.

That's incredibly weak, time is part of the game. What next, the commission may decide the game shouldn't be decided by blunders, and players will be allowed takebacks if they drop a piece for nothing!! :p :p

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 12:41 AM
Can I channel AR for a moment and just call them a bunch of hippies? If a player forgets to press their clock they should quite simply lose the game, much as they should lose if they forget to turn up before midday when the start time is 10:30, or much as they should lose if they forget that 2.g4 doesn't refute From's Gambit. I see the point in the case of increments but I don't see why the arbiter should generally have to serve as a kind of nanny for players who can't learn and handle such a basic requirement reliably - unless the player has a documented medical short-term memory problem.
Note the ruling does not say that Arbiters must inform the player he forgot to press his clock. Its just that Arbiters are no longer forbidden to inform the player.

Personally, I think I would only be informing a player where an incremental time limit was used.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2004, 12:51 AM
Note the ruling does not say that Arbiters must inform the player he forgot to press his clock. Its just that Arbiters are no longer forbidden to inform the player.

Correct. But if they're going to use the argument that a player should not lose on time because he forgets, then that implies a responsibility of the DOP to protect the player from that. Sounds like a case of using an argument to back a change without worrying about what else that argument entailed.

Alan Shore
24-03-2004, 12:53 AM
...or much as they should lose if they forget that 2.g4 doesn't refute From's Gambit.

Cute example :clap:

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 12:59 AM
Correct. But if they're going to use the argument that a player should not lose on time because he forgets, then that implies a responsibility of the DOP to protect the player from that. Sounds like a case of using an argument to back a change without worrying about what else that argument entailed.
I know I read the argument somewhere.
However maybe I have it wrong.
Maybe it was just Guert's or Rueben's opinion and not the Rules Commission.

Rhubarb
24-03-2004, 01:28 AM
Ah, but we have been round this block before here - although your comment adds a useful extra dimension because it supports my interpretation (which I'm not sure all were too happy about at the time). Article 4.7 says "When as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. The move is considered to have been made when all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have been fulfilled"

When a move is illegal all the relevant requirements of Article 3 have not been met and therefore taking the hand off the piece does not mean the move has been formally "made". So the opponent is not allowed to move a piece in response until the correction is made, unless the illegal move goes unnoticed. (There is a problem in 7.4a where reference is made to an illegal move being "made", when really I think that should say "completed", but in blitz this does not matter as 7.4a doesn't apply).

Now this is going to be fun to watch. :p

Give it up GooseMaster. Your obfuscatory baiting bullshit won't change the fact that I have exposed a glaring hole in the FIDE statutes. It's not about who gets the final word on this BB, it's about who is right.

Garvinator
24-03-2004, 01:30 AM
Give it up GooseMaster. Your obfuscatory baiting bullshit won't change the fact that I have exposed a glaring hole in the FIDE statutes. It's not about who gets the final word on this BB, it's about who is right.
well actually it should be about getting the rules commission to change the rules if they are wrong, shouldnt it ;)

Rhubarb
24-03-2004, 01:43 AM
Ideally yes it is!

Can I not hope to influence Australian arbiters such that they will influence the World Chess Federation's Rules Commission?

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2004, 02:58 AM
Give it up GooseMaster. Your obfuscatory baiting bullshit won't change the fact that I have exposed a glaring hole in the FIDE statutes. It's not about who gets the final word on this BB, it's about who is right.

Hmmm, two possibilities here. One, the real baiting is the above, in which case it isn't all that good. Two, your bluster is ... amusing.

Anyone who Greg's fooled into thinking I was trolling in that post has an urgent appointment with this smiley: :hand:

Now, does anyone know whether Greg's missed the boat for sending submissions direct to the current review process for the Laws of Chess, something that anyone who cares may do? (I sent them one about 10.2, and one about clearing up the stupid mess they created about king capture in blitz).

arosar
24-03-2004, 03:43 PM
I been away all morning and only just got in. So sorry if some points have already been covered. Anyways . . .


Player A may not press his clock. Player B may not realise Player A has not pressed his clock. Player B makes a move and presses his clock. Player A now makes a move and presses his clock.
In the above sequence both player A and Player B have been deprived of the increment.

I don't buy this Bill. It seems to me that only A has 'deprived' himself of the increment. He forgot - period! It's his problem man. If the bloke reckons he's smart enough to play chess, he better bloody well remember to press the friggin clock.

In the scenario you described, B is advantageously 'gaining' time exactly because A hadn't pressed his clock. B couldn't have pressed his clock because his clock (or rather the lever) wasn't up.


The argument from the Rules Commission is that it should not be decided by the simple fact that a player forgot to press his clock.

Bill, you're an OK bloke, but sometimes you're a bit of a bull_sc*hit-artist you know that. Is that really the Commission's own argument or your own perception?

AR

arosar
24-03-2004, 03:50 PM
Give it up GooseMaster. Your obfuscatory baiting bullshit won't change the fact that I have exposed a glaring hole in the FIDE statutes. It's not about who gets the final word on this BB, it's about who is right.

Yo Greg mate....relax man.

Listen, I agree with your point of view about this business of players being allowed to begin their move when the opponent hasn't completed the move. Most gentlemen, like you and I for instance, prefer our own apparently erroneous misunderstanding. Most players I suspect agree with us too. In the blitz finals between Scott and Xie last year, the latter began moving before Scott completed the move (at the press of his clock). So Scott protested quietly to Xie saying something like, "listen, you let me press the clock before you make a move alright".

AR

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 04:14 PM
I don't buy this Bill. It seems to me that only A has 'deprived' himself of the increment. He forgot - period! It's his problem man. If the bloke reckons he's smart enough to play chess, he better bloody well remember to press the friggin clock.
Player B has also been deprived of the increment. He made a move and did not get the increment.


In the scenario you described, B is advantageously 'gaining' time exactly because A hadn't pressed his clock. B couldn't have pressed his clock because his clock (or rather the lever) wasn't up.
You are assuming B is going to sit an wait because A hasnt pressed his clock.
Player B has not done this and played a move and has not received his increment.




Bill, you're an OK bloke, but sometimes you're a bit of a bull_sc*hit-artist you know that. Is that really the Commission's own argument or your own perception?
Nope its not my argument, I was quoting someone.
The Rules Commission minutes often make it quite clear the reason behind a decision.
However the trouble is the Rules Commission minutes also often mention opinions of the Rules Commission members without actually saying whether it was a majority opinion or not.

You would note I later said I wasnt sure if this was a Rules Commission argument or an argument put forward by a Rules Commission member.

However I have since discovered it is an argument put forward by Stewart Reuben on page 77 of The Chess Organisers Handbook. It is however on that page incorrectly listed under 13.5 instead of 13.6. Therefore when commenting on 13.6 Reuben states:
"It is not immediately obvious, but there is an important change here. Hitherto the Laws stated that the arbiter must refrain from telling a player that he has failed to press his clock. This has been deleted. If a move counter is used and the clock not pressed, then the clock will register the wrong number of moves. If the cumulative or delay mode is used, then a player would be deprived of his extra time (usually 30 seconds in standard play) if his opponent does not press the clock. Thus now the arbiter may inform the player of his error.
I had always felt a little uncomfortable that I might spot the fact that a player had failed to press his clock, but was unable to do anything. Why should a player be penbalised for an unfortunate error that has nothing to do with chess? The problem is that the arbiter might not spot the error and thus appear to be favouring one player."

It appears I was remembering Reuben's opinion and not the Rules Commission's (although Ruben is the Secretary of the FIDE Rules Commission).

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 04:15 PM
Listen, I agree with your point of view about this business of players being allowed to begin their move when the opponent hasn't completed the move. Most gentlemen, like you and I for instance, prefer our own apparently erroneous misunderstanding. Most players I suspect agree with us too. In the blitz finals between Scott and Xie last year, the latter began moving before Scott completed the move (at the press of his clock). So Scott protested quietly to Xie saying something like, "listen, you let me press the clock before you make a move alright".
All that seems to indicate is that Scott does not know the rules either. ;)

arosar
24-03-2004, 04:48 PM
That Reuben bloke needs to be readjusted.

He writes: "Thus now the arbiter may inform the player of his error." But not 'must', right Bill?

He writes: "I had always felt a little uncomfortable that I might spot the fact that a player had failed to press his clock, but was unable to do anything. Why should a player be penbalised for an unfortunate error that has nothing to do with chess?"

He's a bit insecure the poor fellow. Nothing to do with chess but it has everything to do with competition chess.

He writes: "The problem is that the arbiter might not spot the error and thus appear to be favouring one player."

That's just his own insecurity Bill.

This business about move counters: I've been playing for some years and I never used it. I reckon most people haven't used it either. So I don't think this is a major prob. Is it? And finally clarify something for me please. Why does he insist on this thinking that " . . . a player would be deprived of his extra time" if the player's opponent doesn't press the clock. Say you and I are playing. You have made the move but not pressed your clock. Your clock is ticking while mine is still at rest. You're losing time. While sure, I have not gained the increment, I haven't been disadvantaged at all. Right? Why should I be worried of not having gained the increment?

AR

Garvinator
24-03-2004, 05:03 PM
Say you and I are playing. You have made the move but not pressed your clock. Your clock is ticking while mine is still at rest. You're losing time. While sure, I have not gained the increment, I haven't been disadvantaged at all. Right? Why should I be worried of not having gained the increment?AR
I think the answer might be that you would have gained more time on the increment than you actually gained by playing on your opponents time.

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 05:14 PM
That Reuben bloke needs to be readjusted.

He writes: "Thus now the arbiter may inform the player of his error." But not 'must', right Bill?

He writes: "I had always felt a little uncomfortable that I might spot the fact that a player had failed to press his clock, but was unable to do anything. Why should a player be penbalised for an unfortunate error that has nothing to do with chess?"

He's a bit insecure the poor fellow. Nothing to do with chess but it has everything to do with competition chess.

He writes: "The problem is that the arbiter might not spot the error and thus appear to be favouring one player."

That's just his own insecurity Bill.

This business about move counters: I've been playing for some years and I never used it. I reckon most people haven't used it either. So I don't think this is a major prob. Is it?
Not everyone around the world uses the DGT clock.
As I understand it some clocks count the moves and initiate the secondary time control after say the 40th move has been reached. If the players have actually played 40 moves but the clock only thinks its 39 then there is a problem.


And finally clarify something for me please. Why does he insist on this thinking that " . . . a player would be deprived of his extra time" if the player's opponent doesn't press the clock. Say you and I are playing. You have made the move but not pressed your clock. Your clock is ticking while mine is still at rest. You're losing time. While sure, I have not gained the increment, I haven't been disadvantaged at all. Right? Why should I be worried of not having gained the increment?
Of course if you are going to sit there and wait for him to wake up then there is no issue.
However if you decide not to sit and wait (or possibly you havent noticed he hasnt pressed his clock) but instead decide to move then once you move the lever is the wrong way so you dont get the increment.

Kevin Bonham
24-03-2004, 05:16 PM
I think the answer might be that you would have gained more time on the increment than you actually gained by playing on your opponents time.

Correct. If you are in a serious time squeeze and your opponent is not, you would rather press the clock and get 30 seconds added to your own time than spend perhaps less than that thinking about your move on your opponent's. Even if your opponent takes, say, 2 minutes to wake up, you might still prefer to have 30 secs to disperse across several moves as you see fit than just 2 extra minutes for one specific move.

arosar
24-03-2004, 05:28 PM
Aaah...but this doesn't worry me really. I s'pose it all depends on mindset really. If he's got, say, -90secs and I have, say, -33secs, mate, I'd be milking every second of advantage I can get.

Anyway, the arbiter and the Rules should simply stay out of it.

AR

Alan Shore
24-03-2004, 06:15 PM
All that seems to indicate is that Scott does not know the rules either. ;)

Bill you goose - I'm sure he does. The real contention was that Xie was holding the clock down!

arosar
24-03-2004, 06:20 PM
Hey Bill....dow did you manage to insert your response to me between Kevo's and gray's. I coulda sworn your response wasn't there before.

AR

Garvinator
24-03-2004, 06:23 PM
Hey Bill....dow did you manage to insert your response to me between Kevo's and gray's. I coulda sworn your response wasn't there before.

AR
I have noticed this occur before a few times too, i think when you quote someone's post that is about six posts old, the response is inserted straight after the quoted post :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
24-03-2004, 06:27 PM
I have noticed this occur before a few times too, i think when you quote someone's post that is about six posts old, the response is inserted straight after the quoted post :hmm:
As far as i can tell thats not correct gg.

Garvinator
24-03-2004, 06:30 PM
As far as i can tell thats not correct gg.
i was just speculating, hence :hmm:

Rhubarb
25-03-2004, 06:32 AM
Yo Greg mate....relax man.

Listen, I agree with your point of view about this business of players being allowed to begin their move when the opponent hasn't completed the move. Most gentlemen, like you and I for instance, prefer our own apparently erroneous misunderstanding.

Thanks for your support, Amiel. It is obvious to you and I (gentlemen or not :) ) that any right-thinking, fair-minded individual would not play a move in blitz until the opponent has pressed the clock.

That Fide allows an opponent to play a move before the clock has been pressed, means that all the blitz hacks and cheats are let into the fray, on a legal standing, despite me pointing out the absurd situation in blitz where both players are legally allowed to make moves at the same time.

It was to be expected that I would face opposition to change from the Alpha-Functionaries in this forum.

Now, if I could work out a direct path to the FIDE Rules Commission....

P.S. Amiel, I think your attack on volunteers in other threads is misguided and unconscionable.

arosar
25-03-2004, 08:10 AM
It was to be expected that I would face opposition to change from the Alpha-Functionaries in this forum.

Well, you're well and truly bloodied now ain't ya? Stick around mate, it's all in good fun.


P.S. Amiel, I think your attack on volunteers in other threads is misguided and unconscionable.

Not 'volunteers' - but 'heroes'. I hate the f**kers in all aspects of life. Now don't worry about me. I know exactly what I'm doing.

AR

Garvinator
25-03-2004, 08:45 AM
Not 'volunteers' - but 'heroes'. I hate the f**kers in all aspects of life. Now don't worry about me. I know exactly what I'm doing. AR
take it to the volunteers thread ;)

samspade
25-03-2004, 09:09 AM
they should lose if they forget that 2.g4 doesn't refute From's Gambit.
Damn! So that's what I've been doing wrong all this time...

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 11:03 AM
That Fide allows an opponent to play a move before the clock has been pressed, means that all the blitz hacks and cheats are let into the fray, on a legal standing, despite me pointing out the absurd situation in blitz where both players are legally allowed to make moves at the same time.
To be totally accurate here Greg, all you have shown is that it is legally allowed for both players to make a move at the same time if the first player made an illegal move. If Player A's move is legal he loses the right to change it once he releases the piece, hence Player B is the only player who then has the move.

As I said before, I have never seen nor heard of your rule anomaly causing any problems. I'm open to people citing actual examples.

Also I'm not sure how you would change the Blitz rules to cater for the illegal move issue. After all it would be strange to allow a player to begin his move in Normal and Rapid once his opponent has released the piece, but not allow it in Blitz, epecially when the problem in Blitz only occurs in one very specific case of the player making an illefal move and his opponent not noticing it.
Therefore I cannot see FIDE outlawing the practice in Blitz.


It was to be expected that I would face opposition to change from the Alpha-Functionaries in this forum.
Thats because we enjoy a good debate, especially when the opponent is sensible and reasonable and isnt a goose.


Now, if I could work out a direct path to the FIDE Rules Commission....
You can email Guert Gjissen the chairman of the Rules Commission directly via the email address on the Chesscafe web site or to his personal email address.

arosar
25-03-2004, 11:34 AM
Bill in your opinion, will Greg's interpretation, that B may not commence to make a move before A has completed his by pressing his clock, hold anyway?

AR

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 12:24 PM
Bill in your opinion, will Greg's interpretation, that B may not commence to make a move before A has completed his by pressing his clock, hold anyway?
Certainly not with regards to moves in general. I still dont think it will in his specific illegal move scenerio.

First lets clarify one point before looking at a scenario.
In Normal chess an illegal move once detected always requires the position to be restored to the postion immediately before the illegal move occurred or if this cannot be determined to the last identifiable position prior to the illegal move. The offending players opponent receives an additional 2 mins on his clock.
In Rapid a player loses the right to claim an illegal move and hence gain the additional 2 mins as soon as he touches a piece on the chessboard.
However in Blitz the player only loses the right to claim illegal move not when he touches a piece but when he makes a move and releases the piece.

Therefore if Player A had made an illegal move and pressed his clock, Player B could claim illegal move up until the time he makes a move and releases the piece.

Lets look at it like this.
1) Player A makes an illegal move and releases the piece.
2) Player B starts to move his piece. Clearly Player B has not noticed Player A's move is illegal otherwise he would wait for Player A to press his clock and then Player B could claim a win on illegal move.
3) Player A notices his move is illegal
4) Player A starts to retract his illegal move.

Now here there are a few possibilities.
1) It would make sense at this point for Player A to inform Player B that Player B will have to retract his move so that Player A can correct his illegal move. He could also point out to Player B that he cannot claim a win on illegal move because he (Player A) had not pressed his clock.

2) Player A is a devious individual and although noticing he made an illegal move at point 3 above, does not start to retract it (because he knows he cannot lose on illegal move because he has not pressed his clock) but rather notices that Player B's move is going to be inconsequential and thus he waits for player B to make his move and release the piece. At this stage Player B cannot change his move and neither can Player A. The game must continue from the position on the board. Note this situtaion is the same as if Player A never realised his move was illegal.

3) Player A is the same devious player as in 2) above but realises that his opponents move is going to be crushing(e.g. Player B is going to attack Players A's queen. Player A will therefore have the problem of getting his King out of check or saving his queen). Player A therefore needs to start to retract his illegal move prior to Player B releasing his piece. If Player A does not start to retract his move before Player B releases his piece then the situation is as in 2) above and Player A will not be allowed to retract.

However one has to realise that Blitz by its very nature can lead to all sort of strange and weird positions, mainly due to the issue of illegal moves losing immediately if a valid claim is amde and illegal moves unnoticed by the players cannot be retracted. Situations such as both players leaving their Kings in check, a player leaving his king in check for a number of moves and his opponent not seeing it, a player promoting his pawn to an opponents piece etc (I've seen all of these to name just a few).

As such I suspect scenarios 1 and 2 above would not lead to much of a problem.

Scenario 3 however would probably lead to an argument.
However said argument would be no different to many that occur between players in Blitz games. Especially given that most players have little understanding of the rules.

Rincewind
25-03-2004, 12:38 PM
However one has to realise that Blitz by its very nature can lead to all sort of strange and weird positions, mainly due to the issue of illegal moves losing immediately if a valid claim is amde and illegal moves unnoticed by the players cannot be retracted. Situations such as both players leaving their Kings in check, a player leaving his king in check for a number of moves and his opponent not seeing it, a player promoting his pawn to an opponents piece etc (I've seen all of these to name just a few).

What about positions with one or both sides without a king? ;)

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 12:50 PM
What about positions with one or both sides without a king? ;)
Lets not start that again. :hand:
I'd prefer to stick to the current topic. ;)

Rincewind
25-03-2004, 01:12 PM
Lets not start that again. :hand:
I'd prefer to stick to the current topic. ;)

I think it must have been about a year since the last king-capturing jihad. :D But I don't have time to wage a holy war right now.

arosar
25-03-2004, 01:38 PM
Hey Bill - thanks Bill. I am sure glad you're a volunteer mate, otherwise you'd be costing me quite a bit in consultancy fees!

AR

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 02:01 PM
Hey Bill - thanks Bill. I am sure glad you're a volunteer mate, otherwise you'd be costing me quite a bit in consultancy fees!

AR
No problems AR.
Since I know your a freeloader I would not expect you to pay. ;)
I did however expect more of a response/comment from you.

arosar
25-03-2004, 02:30 PM
Just consider it pro bono Bill. You're educating the rabble.

AR

Garvinator
25-03-2004, 02:41 PM
Just consider it pro bono Bill. You're educating the rabble.

AR
are you the rabble ar ;)

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2004, 02:42 PM
Hey, if I might be permitted some real obfuscatory baiting at this point, imagine this.

A moves his king into check in blitz and presses his clock. B "makes" an illegal move in reply but before he can press his clock, A reaches out and picks up his king to move it out of check. While A is thinking about where to move his king out of check, B notices both that his own move was illegal and that A's previous move was illegal. B still hasn't pressed the clock. Since A now has a winning position if he completes the king move and presses the clock, B interrupts (under the procedure suggested by Bill), says that he has to replace his illegal move with a legal one, retracts his illegal move, starts making a legal move in replacement, and with his hand on a piece to make that move, claims a win on account of A's leaving his king in check. :lol:

Does B win? (There's a trap here for those who say no. See if you can spot it coming in advance. A big hint: Barry will like it.)

PS Something sensible here for a change - the problem of the player forgetting to press their clock could perhaps be solved without allowing blitzing by saying that a player may move without waiting for a clock press a certain number of seconds after the opponent has released a piece.

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 02:58 PM
Hey, if I might be permitted some real obfuscatory baiting at this point, imagine this.

A moves his king into check in blitz and presses his clock. B "makes" an illegal move in reply but before he can press his clock, A reaches out and picks up his king to move it out of check. While A is thinking about where to move his king out of check, B notices both that his own move was illegal and that A's previous move was illegal. B still hasn't pressed the clock. Since A now has a winning position if he completes the king move and presses the clock, B interrupts (under the procedure suggested by Bill), says that he has to replace his illegal move with a legal one, retracts his illegal move, starts making a legal move in replacement, and with his hand on a piece to make that move, claims a win on account of A's leaving his king in check. :lol:
:lol: :lol: Now wonder your the Goosemaster. ;)


Does B win? (There's a trap here for those who say no. See if you can spot it coming in advance.)
Firstly A cannot get a winning position by retracting his illegal move and making a king move because he is not allowed to retract it because he had already pressed his clock.

On top of that I'll try and confuse it even further.
I would argue that B lost the chance to claim a win due to A's illegal move as soon as he (B) released the piece as part of his own illegal move. The reason I say this is that the rule says that the player can claim illegal move provided he he does so before making his own move. The rule makes no mention of his own "legal" move. Player B made a move its just happens to be illegal.
Therefore A cannot retract his illegal move because he pressed the clock. B can retract his illegal move because he hasnt pressed the clock but he cannot claim a win based on A's illegal move.


PS Something sensible here for a change - the problem of the player forgetting to press their clock could perhaps be solved without allowing blitzing by saying that a player may move without waiting for a clock press a certain number of seconds after the opponent has released a piece.
I dont think you would want to do that, otherwise you will simply add another point of argument. Player A will complain that Player B start to touch his pieces 1.9 seconds after Player A released his piece instead of waiting the required 2 seconds. :lol: :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2004, 03:13 PM
Now wonder your the Goosemaster. ;)

I have to live up to my self-appointed title now and then. I'm not sure anyone here could outgoose that one, except me.


On top of that I'll try and confuse it even further.

You failed! Your answer was exactly what I expected.


I would argue that B lost the chance to claim a win due to A's illegal move as soon as he (B) released the piece as part of his own illegal move. The reason I say this is that the rule says that the player can claim illegal move provided he he does so before making his own move. The rule makes no mention of his own "legal" move. Player B made a move its just happens to be illegal. Therefore A cannot retract his illegal move because he pressed the clock. B can retract his illegal move because he hasnt pressed the clock but he cannot claim a win based on A's illegal move.

And now the fiendish trap is sprung. B cannot claim a win but he can retract his illegal move, according to you. What if it happens now that B's only legal move is to capture A's king? :boohoo: It would seem that now the arbiter must either step in and declare the game drawn (which I guess is fair enough), or else we are off to Barryland where A plays on without a king, and, incidentally, benefits from having made the first illegal move.


I dont think you would want to do that, otherwise you will simply add another point of argument. Player A will complain that Player B start to touch his pieces 1.9 seconds after Player A released his piece instead of waiting the required 2 seconds. :lol: :whistle:

I don't know if that matters, just so long as there is no doubt that A forgot to press his clock. And I'd think it should be something more like 20 seconds, since many players like to move-score-press in that order.

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 03:32 PM
I have to live up to my self-appointed title now and then. I'm not sure anyone here could outgoose that one, except me.
;)



You failed! Your answer was exactly what I expected.
Firstly I worked out what your trick was but after considering it for all of about 1.5 secs I dimissed it as being to stupid to seriously contemplate. ;) :whistle:
Secondly, I thought you might wait for someone to have a crack at your question before responding to my post.


And now the fiendish trap is sprung. B cannot claim a win but he can retract his illegal move, according to you. What if it happens now that B's only legal move is to capture A's king? :boohoo:
Nice try Kevin.
Of course as far as I can see the only way for this to be true would require the two kings to be on adjacent squares AND player B's king has no square to enable it to retreat.


It would seem that now the arbiter must either step in and declare the game drawn (which I guess is fair enough), or else we are off to Barryland where A plays on without a king, and, incidentally, benefits from having made the first illegal move.
The less said about barryland the better. :hand:
I think in the circustances then a draw would be a reasonable result.
Given player A tried to retract his illegal move, it is reasonable to assume that he did not try the old K attacks K trick deliberately. I know some arbiters who believe anyone trying this should automatically lose under Article 12.1.


I don't know if that matters, just so long as there is no doubt that A forgot to press his clock. And I'd think it should be something more like 20 seconds, since many players like to move-score-press in that order.
Ah, ok I thought you were only referring to Blitz.
Since your not then I dont think your suggestion has a chance in hell of getting any sort of official support. Of course I dont believe you would have thought it would anyway. :hmm:

Alan Shore
25-03-2004, 03:46 PM
Have any of you ever purposely played an illegal move to win in blitz? I recall an amusing game, where I was pretty much dead lost on position, with only a couple of pawns left - we both had under 10 seconds left. My king was on b4, his was on d4. I was moving my king around and he was pushing a pawn to promote. So it went something like ..g3, Kc4?! g2, Kxd4 1-0. I doubt my opponent was too impressed but I thought it was a great swindle :owned:

eclectic
25-03-2004, 04:04 PM
Have any of you ever purposely played an illegal move to win in blitz? I recall an amusing game, where I was pretty much dead lost on position, with only a couple of pawns left - we both had under 10 seconds left. My king was on b4, his was on d4. I was moving my king around and he was pushing a pawn to promote. So it went something like ..g3, Kc4?! g2, Kxd4 1-0. I doubt my opponent was too impressed but I thought it was a great swindle :owned:
you can be lucky there isn't the following rule in chess:

a player, upon completing an illegal move, shall be deemed to have resigned.
this immediately ends the game.

eclectic

Kevin Bonham
25-03-2004, 04:07 PM
Of course as far as I can see the only way for this to be true would require the two kings to be on adjacent squares AND player B's king has no square to enable it to retreat.

That is the most obvious way it would happen. But it's not the only legal possibility, although all the others I can think of are highly artificial. Remember that B can be forced to move the piece he originally touched, it may be he made an illegal move (not involving moving himself into check) with a piece that had no other legal move.


Given player A tried to retract his illegal move, it is reasonable to assume that he did not try the old K attacks K trick deliberately. I know some arbiters who believe anyone trying this should automatically lose under Article 12.1.

Actually I should have made my example clearer. When he picks up his king A is not attempting to retract his previous move, he is attempting to make a fresh move that gets his king out of check. He hasn't done anything unsporting at any stage, he just made an illegal move then didn't notice that B's reply to his illegal move was itself illegal.

I agree, FWIW. Deliberately making illegal moves can be dealt with in a range of ways.


Ah, ok I thought you were only referring to Blitz.
Since your not then I dont think your suggestion has a chance in hell of getting any sort of official support. Of course I dont believe you would have thought it would anyway. :hmm:

No, I don't think it would. I don't think anyone would be interested in any kind of open-ended formulation allowing a player to move when his opponent has "clearly forgotten" to press the clock either. In any case, those who feel that allowing blitzing in, um, blitz is unsporting, still have to convince me that this is so.

We had one incident with one player blitzing another like this in blitz several years ago, the blitzee hasn't played a blitz game since.

Bill Gletsos
25-03-2004, 04:58 PM
That is the most obvious way it would happen. But it's not the only legal possibility, although all the others I can think of are highly artificial. Remember that B can be forced to move the piece he originally touched, it may be he made an illegal move (not involving moving himself into check) with a piece that had no other legal move.
True, I was thinking of less artificial constructs.


Actually I should have made my example clearer. When he picks up his king A is not attempting to retract his previous move, he is attempting to make a fresh move that gets his king out of check. He hasn't done anything unsporting at any stage, he just made an illegal move then didn't notice that B's reply to his illegal move was itself illegal.
Ok. It had not occurred to me that what you meant.

Garvinator
01-04-2004, 11:51 PM
I have a rule question, oh dear everyone says ;)

The time control for the tournament our club just started is 60 minutes per game plus 30 secs added on at the end of the 60 minutes.

My question is: what is the situation regarding recording of moves?

Is it:

1) the player must record the whole game
2) the player doesnt have to record at all after they enter the first period of 5 minutes remaining
3) the player doesnt have to record when they get inside 5 minutes remaining in the main time control, but then must update their scoresheet after finishing the main time control?

Rincewind
02-04-2004, 12:04 AM
I have a rule question, oh dear everyone says ;)

The time control for the tournament our club just started is 60 minutes per game plus 30 secs added on at the end of the 60 minutes.

My question is: what is the situation regarding recording of moves?

Is it:

1) the player must record the whole game
2) the player doesnt have to record at all after they enter the first period of 5 minutes remaining
3) the player doesnt have to record when they get inside 5 minutes remaining in the main time control, but then must update their scoresheet after finishing the main time control?

Interesting question. If I was DoP I'd announce (1).

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 12:08 AM
Interesting question. If I was DoP I'd announce (1).
i said it should be one before the tournament began and after the first round was over to the dop, but the decision he made was 2, as soon as a player is inside the 5 minutes they dont have to record for the rest of the game.

I think this time control wont be used again :whistle:

Rincewind
02-04-2004, 12:12 AM
i said it should be one before the tournament began and after the first round was over to the dop, but the decision he made was 2, as soon as a player is inside the 5 minutes they dont have to record for the rest of the game.

That's got to be wrong. There is a argument for not recording when there is <5 minutes and the +30 seconds hasn't kicked in, but I think it is a weak one.

At the very least, once the +30s has kicked in, recording should recommence.

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 12:16 AM
That's got to be wrong. There is a argument for not recording when there is <5 minutes and the +30 seconds hasn't kicked in, but I think it is a weak one.

At the very least, once the +30s has kicked in, recording should recommence.
ill just repeat myself to make it clear ;) i said that the players should record the whole game.

Now for the answer I got and yes the debate was about the 5 minute situation. As the rules state, a player does not have to record after they enter the 5 minute time period. A player could theoritically play 20 moves in this period, it is then a little unreasonable to expect a player to update their scoresheet in 30 secs after playing 20 moves.

I just restated my opinion and left it at that and said that i would try and get a clear ruling on here from ppl who know more than i do.

Bill Gletsos
02-04-2004, 12:45 AM
Interesting question. If I was DoP I'd announce (1).
I'm fairly certain I've seen this discussed somewhere and the answer is (1).

(2) is clearly wrong. The reasoning is obvious.
Assume the time limit is 40 in 120 then 20 moves in 60 mins repeating.
in the first time control the player does not have to record once they have less than 5 mins, but as soon as the flag falls they have to bring their score sheet up to date and continue recording.

Now with regards to your time limit, it could be argued that you dont have to record because you have less than 5 mins and you dont have an increment at all at that stage, however once the flag falls you now have 30 secs per move hence you are required to restart recording. There is no way you could possibly interpret the laws as written to allow option (2)

Of course interpreting as per (3) would make it extremley difficult for the player as he would have virtually no chance to bring his score sheet up to date in 30 secs if it was more than a few moves behind.

Its for the above reasons that I'm sure I read somewhere that the answer is (1).

As far as I know FIDE run no tournaments with a time control of X mins and Y secs where Y is 30 or more and the secs start after the initial X mins have elapsed.
Thats why wherever an increment of 30 secs or more is used it always applies from move 1.

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 12:50 AM
I'm fairly certain I've seen this discussed somewhere and the answer is (1).

(2) is clearly wrong. The reasoning is obvious.
Assume the time limit is 40 in 120 then 20 moves in 60 mins repeating.
in the first time control the player does not have to record once they have less than 5 mins, but as soon as the flag falls they have to bring their score sheet up to date and continue recording.

Now with regards to your time limit, it could be argued that you dont have to record because you have less than 5 mins and you dont have an increment at all at that stage, however once the flag falls you now have 30 secs per move hence you are required to restart recording. There is no way you could possibly interpret the laws as written to allow option (2)

Of course interpreting as per (3) would make it extremley difficult for the player as he would have virtually no chance to bring his score sheet up to date in 30 secs if it was more than a few moves behind.

Its for the above reasons that I'm sure I read somewhere that the answer is (1).

As far as I know FIDE run no tournaments with a time control of X mins and Y secs where Y is 30 or more and the secs start after the initial X mins have elapsed.
Thats why wherever an increment of 30 secs or more is used it always applies from move 1.
thank you. i will pass this on for round two that situation 1 is the most correct answer.

Rincewind
02-04-2004, 12:56 AM
I'm fairly certain I've seen this discussed somewhere and the answer is (1).

(2) is clearly wrong. The reasoning is obvious.
Assume the time limit is 40 in 120 then 20 moves in 60 mins repeating.
in the first time control the player does not have to record once they have less than 5 mins, but as soon as the flag falls they have to bring their score sheet up to date and continue recording.

Now with regards to your time limit, it could be argued that you dont have to record because you have less than 5 mins and you dont have an increment at all at that stage, however once the flag falls you now have 30 secs per move hence you are required to restart recording. There is no way you could possibly interpret the laws as written to allow option (2)

Of course interpreting as per (3) would make it extremley difficult for the player as he would have virtually no chance to bring his score sheet up to date in 30 secs if it was more than a few moves behind.

Its for the above reasons that I'm sure I read somewhere that the answer is (1).

I don't recollect a previous debate but I agree wholeheartedly on the assessment. :clap:


As far as I know FIDE run no tournaments with a time control of X mins and Y secs where Y is 30 or more and the secs start after the initial X mins have elapsed.
Thats why wherever an increment of 30 secs or more is used it always applies from move 1.

I'm not a big fan of any increment that comes on after the first player uses all their initial allotment. As a player I find the tempo of the game too stilted and as a some-times arbiter it confuses many players. Better to always increment from move 1 when you are using 1 period + increment time controls, regardless of the magnitude of the increment.

Garvinator
02-04-2004, 01:33 AM
Better to always increment from move 1 when you are using 1 period + increment time controls, regardless of the magnitude of the increment.
i agree, but wasnt there a bb debate recently about a similar point to this :owned: ;) :lol: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
02-04-2004, 01:47 AM
I'm fairly certain I've seen this discussed somewhere and the answer is (1).

I agree with (1). It is not directly clearcut from the wording of 8.4 ("If a player has less than five minutes left on his clock and does not have additional time of 30 seconds or more added with each move ...") but I would rule that players must score at all times. It is very clearly in the spirit of the rule - which is that players score unless there is a good reason they shouldn't have to. A player will always be able to take 30 seconds over his move at this time control without flagfall, so there is no reason to let a player not score.

arosar
02-04-2004, 04:19 PM
I got a question here, right.

Blitz game at G5. For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at Player A having 00:00:75.00 secs left; B has 00:00:01.13 secs.

The frozen time is important because what happened was, when it was his turn to move, B, seeing mate on the board, stopped the clocks instead of grabbing the Queen and delivering mate. Player B feared that if he'd played normally, he wouldn't have had sufficient time, in a little over 1 second, to pick up the piece and make the move.

B now said to A, "Look I've got mate to follow, you lose".

A responded, "You have to play the move - so, play your move!" After much debate, B agreed.

With right thumb on the clock's start button, and Queen in the left hand, he was all set to deliver mate.

How should the arbiter handle this situation?

AR

Garvinator
04-05-2004, 07:00 PM
i have a rules question from the peninsula open.

Time control is 90 minutes per game followed by 10 seconds per move.

Player A has just ran out of time but Player B has not claimed/realised the flagfall. They kept playing on, what would happen if Player A had checkmated player B or player B had run out of time as well. Also can the arbiter point out a flagfall. I suppose in your answer you can include any other pertinent answers.

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2004, 07:28 PM
I got a question here, right.

Blitz game at G5. For the purposes of this question, let's freeze the clocks at Player A having 00:00:75.00 secs left; B has 00:00:01.13 secs.

The frozen time is important because what happened was, when it was his turn to move, B, seeing mate on the board, stopped the clocks instead of grabbing the Queen and delivering mate. Player B feared that if he'd played normally, he wouldn't have had sufficient time, in a little over 1 second, to pick up the piece and make the move.

B now said to A, "Look I've got mate to follow, you lose".

A responded, "You have to play the move - so, play your move!" After much debate, B agreed.

With right thumb on the clock's start button, and Queen in the left hand, he was all set to deliver mate.

How should the arbiter handle this situation?

AR
If I was the arbiter I would require that player B replace the queen on the board and that he cannot handle any piece until the clock is restarted.
However as far as I am concerned player B had no valid reason to stop the clock.
Therefore if I restart the clock especially with B having his hand hovering close to the queen, I am giving him an advantage he does not deserve.
So I would insist that player B must restart the clock, and use the same hand to move the piece(queen).

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2004, 07:36 PM
i have a rules question from the peninsula open.

Time control is 90 minutes per game followed by 10 seconds per move.

Player A has just ran out of time but Player B has not claimed/realised the flagfall. They kept playing on, what would happen if Player A had checkmated player B or player B had run out of time as well. Also can the arbiter point out a flagfall. I suppose in your answer you can include any other pertinent answers.
If A checkmates B the mate stands unless B has made a claim on time prior to this.
If B has also run out of time then in line with Article 6.12 the game is drawn if it is impossible to tell which flag fell first. However with DGT clocks it is always possible to tell whose flag fell first. So in this case A would lose.
Note if the game was a rapid or blitz then when both flags are down its a draw irrespective of which flag fell first.

Since the game is played under the standard rules of chess and Article 10 does not apply(since there is an increment) then the flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes it in accordance with Article 6.9.
Therefore A would lose.

Garvinator
04-05-2004, 07:50 PM
If A checkmates B the mate stands unless B has made a claim on time prior to this.
If B has also run out of time then in line with Article 6.12 the game is drawn if it is impossible to tell which flag fell first. However with DGT clocks it is always possible to tell whose flag fell first. So in this case A would lose.
Note if the game was a rapid or blitz then when both flags are down its a draw irrespective of which flag fell first.

Since the game is played under the standard rules of chess and Artilce 10 does not apply(since there is an increment) then the flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes it in accordance with Article 6.9.
Therefore A would lose.

can the arbiter point out the fact that A's time has run out before the players have stopped playing moves?

Bill Gletsos
04-05-2004, 07:56 PM
can the arbiter point out the fact that A's time has run out before the players have stopped playing moves?
The arbiter should stop the players as soon as he observes the flag fall.
I know of some arbiters in the past who did not like pointing out fall falls on the basis they belived it should be up to the players involved.
As Geurt correctly has pointed out these arbiters are in breach of the laws of chess in particular Article 13.1.

Garvinator
04-05-2004, 09:41 PM
The arbiter should stop the players as soon as he observes the flag fall.
I know of some arbiters in the past who did not like pointing out fall falls on the basis they belived it should be up to the players involved.
As Geurt correctly has pointed out these arbiters are in breach of the laws of chess in particular Article 13.1.

another question. i know i seem to have many from the tournament :lol: both players had less than five minutes remaining and player A asked if someone would record the rest of the game. One spectator said that no one else cant record the game, i thought that the dop should do it if requested. What should have been the correct answer?

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2004, 09:50 PM
another question. i know i seem to have many from the tournament :lol: both players had less than five minutes remaining and player A asked if someone would record the rest of the game. One spectator said that no one else cant record the game, i thought that the dop should do it if requested. What should have been the correct answer?

The arbiter should attempt to if possible and can appoint an assistant for this purpose. Whether the players request this or not is irrelevant.

Kevin Bonham
04-05-2004, 09:54 PM
If I was the arbiter I would require that player A replace the queen on the board and that he cannot handle any piece until the clock is restarted.
However as far as I am concerned player A had no valid reason to stop the clock.
Therefore if I restart the clock especially with A having his hand hovering close to the queen, I am giving him an advantage he does not deserve.
So I would insist that player A must restart the clock, and use the same hand to move the piece(queen).

Bill, I think you have A and B the wrong way round, B is the guy who stopped the clock instead of delivering mate.

However I agree with your solution if B is substituted in all the above.