PDA

View Full Version : LIbby asks a chess question!



Libby
15-05-2005, 08:05 PM
We played the ACT Women & Girls' Championship this weekend.

Underqualified DOP was moi.

Player A (who shall remain nameless but those who know will know) has about 42 mins on the clock - player B has 9 seconds.

Time control is 60mins plus 10secs from move one.

Player A is down material but King is scuttling around & hiding with some success. Player A plays a Knight move and Player B is in check.

Player B makes an illegal move, presses the clock, and goes to 19 secs.

Player A points out the illegal move and presses the clock.

Player B makes a legal move, presses the clock and now has about 29 seconds on the clock.

In other words, under intense time pressure, Player B has now gained 10seconds more as a consequence of the illegal move.

What should have happened?

What should Player A have done when she noticed the illegal move? Was it more appropriate that she pause the clock rather than press it and return it to player B?

As parent of Player A, the DOP let things go and dealt (nicely) with unhappy Player A after the game. Thankfully we had moved on within 5 minutes and it's no big deal. I just didn't know what to do and didn't want to interfere as a parent of one of the players without knowing exactly what should have occurred. As you might imagine, everything was happening pretty rapidly by this stage anyway.

You can all give me the lecture on the benefits of fantastically qualified and well-paid arbiters later I promise!

Rincewind
15-05-2005, 08:20 PM
I think usual procedure would have been for the player A to stop the clock and summon the arbiter. Player A should have gotten 2 minutes of extra time and player B's clock should have been restarted without increment.

Libby
15-05-2005, 08:24 PM
I think usual procedure would have been for the player A to stop the clock and summon the arbiter. Player A should have gotten 2 minutes of extra time and player B's clock should have been restarted without increment.

I'm sure Player A needed the extra 2 mins ;)

Yes, that was my take on the situation. I couldn't see how Player B should "gain" from an illegal move. Would be a reasonable tactical ploy otherwise. It all got quite messy and I think Player A didn't consider the ramifications of pressing the clock until she had done it.

jay_vee
15-05-2005, 08:24 PM
You seem to have handled the situation just fine. This is one of the situations where there just is no perfect solution.

Technically, player A should have stopped the clocks, called the arbiter over, the arbiter should have reset B's clock to the 9 seconds (if you think it was done deliberately, you could opt to reduce B's time further as a penalty, or add some time to A's clock), and restart the game with B to move before the illegal move. Of course, this entire procedure would likely give B a much bigger advantage in terms of thinking time than the 10 seconds she gained (indeed, if she had done this intentionally to gain time, she could have made A call the arbiter to settle the dispute...). Thus, it was A's best interest the way it happened.

Only if B had a history of "cheating attempts" would I consider more severe penalties

Libby
15-05-2005, 08:30 PM
Only if B had a history of "cheating attempts" would I consider more severe penalties

Absolutely no question of that.

Just wanting to know for my own benefit and so I can tell Kayleigh the correct way to manage this if it ever happens again.

I think she sensed a "time swindle" in the offing and had it whisked away. :(

BTW - ACT Women & Girls was contested by 21 players and was won by Shannon Oliver ahead of Miona Ikeda & Tamzin Oliver.

Our Secondary Girls Championship (held midweek) attracted 43 players.

Libby

jay_vee
15-05-2005, 08:34 PM
BTW - ACT Women & Girls was contested by 21 players and was won by Shannon Oliver ahead of Miona Ikeda & Tamzin Oliver.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those 21 were adults?

Anyway, congratulations on your girl's program, chess needs this alot!

Libby
15-05-2005, 08:38 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many of those 21 were adults?

Anyway, congratulations on your girl's program, chess needs this alot!

2 & a bit. Jenni Oliver & Jennie Nicholson made some suggestion about us instituting a "seniors" category. Shannon Oliver is still a junior in the sense that ACTJCL accepts junior members to age 20.

We had over 250 girls in our Girls' Primary last term. Our ACT reps for Aus Schools will be Curtin Primary with the same 4 girls backing up from last year (won our event 28/28 and a long time control playoff against second place 8-0).

Just needed to brag a little :D

PS Did radio interviews with the main FM stations for the Girls' Primary playoffs and had The Canberra Times at our Girls' Secondary.

Persistance is the biggest factor with the media. Sometimes we go for months without a sniff and then other times they're all over us.

Garvinator
15-05-2005, 10:47 PM
Hello Libby,

In the situation you give, player A's probably gained the biggest advantage by taking the actions she did ie not giving player B the extra time to think which would occur by calling over the arbiter.

How to word this- ummm- In 60/10, if a player makes three illegal moves in one game, they lose the game. Therefore, if player B was to make another illegal move later on, she would have made two illegal moves and would be close to forfeiting the game.
Now, because Player A had not called over the arbiter for the first illegal move, Player B would still have three illegal moves in hand (so to speak). Therefore, if Player A called over the arbiter after the second illegal move, all the arbiter could say is that it is the the first illegal move.

Geez that is a bad explaination, but i hope you understand :eek:

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 10:47 PM
The situation is covered by Article 7.4 of the rules of chess.
It is irrelevant that Player A started Player B's clock after the illegal move and did not claim. As soon as the illegal move is brought to the attention of the arbiter, the arbiter should proceed in accordance with Article 7.4. In fact Article 7.4 does not require the player to make the claim.

Bill Gletsos
15-05-2005, 10:50 PM
Hello Libby,

In the situation you give, player A's probably gained the biggest advantage by taking the actions she did ie not giving player B the extra time to think which would occur by calling over the arbiter.

How to word this- ummm- In 60/10, if a player makes three illegal moves in one game, they lose the game. Therefore, if player B was to make another illegal move later on, she would have made two illegal moves and would be close to forfeiting the game.
Now, because Player A had not called over the arbiter for the first illegal move, Player B would still have three illegal moves in hand (so to speak). Therefore, if Player A called over the arbiter after the second illegal move, all the arbiter could say is that it is the the first illegal move.

Geez that is a bad explaination, but i hope you understand :eek:Not only is it a bad explanation it is also incorrect.
Article 7.4 does not require the player to claim. As soon as the arbiter becomes aware of the the situation, the arbiter must carry out the actions described in Article 7.4.

jay_vee
15-05-2005, 11:01 PM
In fact in this case, article 7.4(a) does not even require an arbiter's intervention, as the situation before the illegal move had already been restored by the players and the arbiter has used her judgement about times on the clock (i.e not to change anything). Article 7.4(b) is somewhat more difficult, as applying it as written actually disadvantages the player it is supposed to help. Probably a case of using sound judgement as per the preface.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 12:05 AM
In fact in this case, article 7.4(a) does not even require an arbiter's intervention, as the situation before the illegal move had already been restored by the players and the arbiter has used her judgement about times on the clock (i.e not to change anything).That is not accurate. Irrespective of the actions of the players the arbiter should step in, correct the position so that it is setup immediately prior to the illegal move and set the clocks if possible to the times they were showing prior to the illegal move. In Libby's case player B' clock should therefore show 19secs and players A's adjusted also to remove 10secs due to player A pressing their clock but not making a move.

Article 7.4(b) is somewhat more difficult, as applying it as written actually disadvantages the player it is supposed to help.How so. Article 7.4b advantages the player who did not make the illegal move. The arbiter must give the opponent of the player who made the illegal move 2mins extra. In Libby's case player A who will now have 2mins plus whatever seconds were on their clock prior to player B's illegal move. At this point B's will still show 19secs.
The arbiter would then start player B's clock and player B can make a legal move to replace the illegal move.

Probably a case of using sound judgement as per the preface.I do not believe the preface is relevant in this circumstance Article 7.4b is quite explicit.

jay_vee
16-05-2005, 12:54 AM
That is not accurate. Irrespective of the actions of the players the arbiter should step in, correct the position so that it is setup immediately prior to the illegal move and set the clocks if possible to the times they were showing prior to the illegal move. In Libby's case player B' clock should therefore show 19secs and players A's adjusted also to remove 10secs due to player A pressing their clock but not making a move.

The position prior to the move had already been reinstated. With regard to time the relevant article 6.14 explicitly asks for a judgment call by the arbiter, which has been made.


How so. Article 7.4b advantages the player who did not make the illegal move. The arbiter must give the opponent of the player who made the illegal move 2mins extra. In Libby's case player A who will now have 2mins plus whatever seconds were on their clock prior to player B's illegal move. At this point B's will still show 19secs.
The arbiter would then start player B's clock and player B can make a legal move to replace the illegal move.

Going into the situation, A had 42 mins on her clock to B's 9 secs. The extra 2 mins would not have been any tangible advantage for A, but the delay the resetting of clocks would cause would likely be more than the total time remaining for B, thus a major and possibly decisive gain of thinking time.



I do not believe the preface is relevant in this circumstance Article 7.4b is quite explicit.

As I have pointed out, it's a difficult case. The rule, when taken literally does not do what it's supposed to do (i.e. the intended advantage for A in reality becomes an advantage for B), therefore it could be considered a case of "a too detailed ruling might prevent...", as the rules do not cover the possibility that the mere act of resetting the clock buys a player a relevant amount of time.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 01:08 AM
The position prior to the move had already been reinstated.Irrelevant. The arbiter should have ensured that Article 7.4 was followed. This includes adjusting the clocks.

With regard to time the relevant article 6.14 explicitly asks for a judgment call by the arbiter, which has been made.I disagree. If the arbiter knew what the times were prior to the illegal move (and apparently she did) then best judgement would mean thats what the clocks should have been set to.

Going into the situation, A had 42 mins on her clock to B's 9 secs. The extra 2 mins would not have been any tangible advantage for A, but the delay the resetting of clocks would cause would likely be more than the total time remaining for B, thus a major and possibly decisive gain of thinking time.Possibly but unless you could somehow prove that B deliberately made the illegal move to gain such an advantage then the rules should be followed. As I said Article 7.4b requires the arbiter to apply the 2 minutes. It is not discretionary.

As I have pointed out, it's a difficult case. The rule, when taken literally does not do what it's supposed to do (i.e. the intended advantage for A in reality becomes an advantage for B), therefore it could be considered a case of "a too detailed ruling might prevent...", as the rules do not cover the possibility that the mere act of resetting the clock buys a player a relevant amount of time.The preface does not apply. Article 7.4b is expicit. The arbiter must award the two minutes.

jay_vee
16-05-2005, 01:34 AM
I disagree. If the arbiter knew what the times were prior to the illegal move (and apparently she did) then best judgement would mean thats what the clocks should have been set to.
That may well be what your judgement call would have been, but the rules ask the arbiter to make that call. And she did. If best judgement would be to reinstate the times as they were, the article could ask for that. But instead a judgement call is asked for, and such a call needs to take other factors into account, such as the disturbance or delay a clock reset would cause.


Possibly but unless you could somehow prove that B deliberately made the illegal move to gain such an advantage then the rules should be followed. As I said Article 7.4b requires the arbiter to apply the 2 minutes. It is not discretionary.
The preface does not apply. Article 7.4b is expicit. The arbiter must award the two minutes.
As I have said, a difficult case. I could argue that the arbiter in making her judgement call above has actually taken that into account as well, and in order to avoid the undesired interruption decided to reset the clocks in such a way that the extra 2 mins would be canceled out, but I let the case rest. Maybe you would like to send a mail to Geurt Gijssen?

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 02:54 AM
That may well be what your judgement call would have been, but the rules ask the arbiter to make that call. And she did.Did she? Libby gave no indication in her post that she was aware of Article 7.4.

If best judgement would be to reinstate the times as they were, the article could ask for that.No it wouldnt because the arbiter may not know what the actual times were in which case best judgement is required. In this case the arbiter did know the times.

But instead a judgement call is asked for, and such a call needs to take other factors into account, such as the disturbance or delay a clock reset would cause.The wording of 6.14 is clear. The arbiter should use their best judgement to determine what the clock times were and adjust the clocks accordingly.

As I have said, a difficult case. I could argue that the arbiter in making her judgement call above has actually taken that into account as well, and in order to avoid the undesired interruption decided to reset the clocks in such a way that the extra 2 mins would be canceled out, but I let the case rest. Maybe you would like to send a mail to Geurt Gijssen?No as I know what the Article means. 7.4b makes it clear the arbiter must add the 2 minutes. On top of that Geurt makes this clear in one of his columns when he explicitly references Article 7.4b and states [b]The arbiter has to add two minutes extra to the offended player’s time.b]

jay_vee
16-05-2005, 03:38 AM
Did she? Libby gave no indication in her post that she was aware of Article 7.4.
Irrelevant, to use one of your favourite words :). She made a judgement call, and acted accordingly.


The wording of 6.14 is clear. The arbiter should use their best judgement to determine what the clock times were and adjust the clocks accordingly..
:eek: You must have a different version of the Laws. In my version 6.14 says "(...) the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks". This is certainly not quite as limiting as would fit your argument.


No as I know what the Article means. 7.4b makes it clear the arbiter must add the 2 minutes. On top of that Geurt makes this clear in one of his columns when he explicitly references Article 7.4b and states [b]The arbiter has to add two minutes extra to the offended player’s time.b]
And obviously, in general that is right. I don't know which column that was in, but i doubt he had these exceptional circumstances in mind.

Anyway, look what we have done to poor Libby's thread. I suggest we stop this here, and agree that Libby has done the right thing for these particular circumstances in this particular tournament. After all, all's well that ends well.

Ian Rout
16-05-2005, 09:08 AM
I think I'd go with Libby on this one. Most sports have a concept of "advantage" whereby a referee has the discretion to waive the application of a penalty where it would benefit the transgressor.

That can't be applied to letting a bad illegal move stand, since the resulting position is an offence against chess rather than just against the opponent. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to not give the player who made the move an extra thirty to sixty seconds while you fumble around taking ten seconds off, and giving the other player a meaningless two minutes. The "strike" for the purpose of dealing with the next occurrence can still stand.

I can easily imaging how I would rule if I was on an Appeals Committee where Player B appealed (after I had stopped laughing).

It might be useful if clocks had an Undo button so that an arbiter could quickly reverse the last increment(s) added.

jenni
16-05-2005, 10:30 AM
I think Ian's comment about the clock having an undo button is most relevant in this case. Libby didn't know what to do and came and stopped my game while we discussed it. (I thus blame Libby for me popping my rook two moves later - totally unforced and in a winning position - I have to blame it on something. :) ).

I was aware of giving 2 minutes extra to the person who had not made the illegal move, but given that they had masses of time it didn't seem to be a fair solution. We did look at taking time off, but I didn't know whether you could do it or not and both Libby and I were a bit daunted at the thought of trying to adjust a digital clock. I think I will do some "home" practise on it, so that it doesn't seem initimidating in the future.

Shannon and Tamzin were playing next to the board in question and watched a fair bit of the game at this point. Shannon is of the opinion that the 10 secs extra would have made no difference to the outcome of the game - the player who made the illegal move was up a large amount of material and could gain time any time they wanted by making some rook moves, which would make no difference to her position and the other player had not much left with which to take advantage of the tempos. However it is important that all players feel they have been dealt with fairly, which is why Libby and I both said we would find out the right thing to do. I have also had a reply from Denis, on the subject (fairly similar to the answers here) . Both Libby and I have spent a large amount of time arbiting games in which our own kids play and we have a tendency to make decisions against the interests of our kids, because we don't want to be seen as unfair.

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 11:23 AM
Irrelevant, to use one of your favourite words :). She made a judgement call, and acted accordingly.The difference is your irrelevant is irrelevant where as my irrelevant was relevant. ;)

:eek: You must have a different version of the Laws. In my version 6.14 says "(...) the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks". This is certainly not quite as limiting as would fit your argument.No, Ive just probably seen more/discyusssed more examples for the interpretation of what best judgement means than you.

And obviously, in general that is right. I don't know which column that was in, but i doubt he had these exceptional circumstances in mind.There is nothing exceptional about these circumstances. However in a discusssion I had with a member of the FIDE Rules Commission they pointed out that if the the rules state that the arbiter "shall do something" then it isnt a discretionary action. If the arbiter fails to do it the arbiter is in breach of the rules. Essentially the arbiter would be in breach of Article 13.1

Anyway, look what we have done to poor Libby's thread. I suggest we stop this here, and agree that Libby has done the right thing for these particular circumstances in this particular tournament.I'm not sure I'd agree for reasons I stated above but it would seem that the lack of adding the two minutes etc had no impact on the game result.

After all, all's well that ends well.Or more importantly no one appealed the arbiters decision. ;)

jenni
16-05-2005, 11:27 AM
2 & a bit. Jenni Oliver & Jennie Nicholson made some suggestion about us instituting a "seniors" category. Shannon Oliver is still a junior in the sense that ACTJCL accepts junior members to age 20.
.

Jennie and I decided to play because we wanted to provide a role model for the girls (I.e. you can play chess after you leave school!). Jennie Nicholson played in NSW in the 70's as a junior and even won 3 trophies (she said there were almost no girls playing in NSW at that stage). We are still hoping to talk Libby into playing one day, but she is too egotistic and couldn't cope with losing to 6 year olds. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
16-05-2005, 11:34 AM
I was aware of giving 2 minutes extra to the person who had not made the illegal move, but given that they had masses of time it didn't seem to be a fair solution.I can understand the problem that arises in this situation. Its one of following the rules and quite possibly advantaging the offender, or not following the rules to minimise any disadvantage.
The problem with such decisions is where to draw the line. e.g. if Player A had only 42 secs left as opposed to 42 mins, would the arbiter have then added the extra 2 mins. Based on what has been said additional time for player A would seem to be irrelevant anyway in this situation.
It is for reasons like this that the rule does not allow the arbiter the option of not awarding the extra 2 mins.

Shannon and Tamzin were playing next to the board in question and watched a fair bit of the game at this point. Shannon is of the opinion that the 10 secs extra would have made no difference to the outcome of the game - the player who made the illegal move was up a large amount of material and could gain time any time they wanted by making some rook moves, which would make no difference to her position and the other player had not much left with which to take advantage of the tempos.Thanks for this information.

However it is important that all players feel they have been dealt with fairly, which is why Libby and I both said we would find out the right thing to do. I have also had a reply from Denis, on the subject (fairly similar to the answers here) . Both Libby and I have spent a large amount of time arbiting games in which our own kids play and we have a tendency to make decisions against the interests of our kids, because we don't want to be seen as unfair.Yes, that last situation is always going to be a problem. You just have to hope your kid, doesnt appeal one of your decisions. ;)

Libby
16-05-2005, 04:27 PM
I think it's important for me to stress that I was not looking for a win for Kayleigh - just to know what was correct.

The most correct thing, I believe, was a solution where time would be reinstated to what it should have been. That is what I would have attempted had the clocks been stopped and I been asked for my opinion.

However, Kayleigh played on and I think had not considered how pressing the clock herself was going to give her opponent the additional 10secs. It was only after she did it that you could see the frown appear on her face as she looked at the clock. It may well have made no difference to the result (and I said as much to her and she accepted that and made no waves about the outcome). That's an unknown and I think, irrelevant point. Jenni's popped rook is an example of how you can never predict what may happen in a game (the advantage was a passed pawn and a single rook, not 2 rooks, in Kayleigh's game).

I am happy for the result to stand and happy to understand what to do in future and have told her what to do in future. It's not a big deal.

Ian Rout
16-05-2005, 05:00 PM
This is a case where experience is useful. I think an experienced player as Player A would realise that Player B had just got an unearned extra ten seconds but also realise that any attempt to remedy that would give Player B rather more than that, so the best thing to do is accept that it's happened and play on.

A related point in passing is that the Stop/Start button on chess clocks (at least those I've used) is not ideally engineered or placed for quick pressing. Apart from the problem of getting your hand in once there are pieces on the central ranks, we often see people needing two or three attempts to start the red clock because you can't feel when a press has been registered. On the models used in the Doeberl top 24 boards (I think 22 boards by the end) I wasn't even sure which was the Start button. Maybe it's something players should train for.

Libby
16-05-2005, 05:57 PM
Not to mention the (still to be recognised) benefit to Player A had they used a little more of their 42 remaining minutes sometime prior to this occuring :doh:

I think the argument from Player A (after the event) was more along the lines that a player on 9 seconds, who picks up a piece to make an illegal move, has that pointed out, must return it and make an alternative move, all without either clock being pressed - and all in their own remaining 9 seconds - may have drifted very close to zero.

Maybe. As I pointed out.

jenni
16-05-2005, 06:51 PM
Well I've found the whole thing quite instructive and have learned a lot out of it.

I guess we very rarely have a problem in our junior tournaments, so there is no incentive to become "expert" Dops. This particular problem is one that I can see reoccuring, so useful to know what to do.

Libby
16-05-2005, 07:11 PM
Well I've found the whole thing quite instructive and have learned a lot out of it.

I guess we very rarely have a problem in our junior tournaments, so there is no incentive to become "expert" Dops. This particular problem is one that I can see reoccuring, so useful to know what to do.

:hmm: I was thinking of our upcoming Secondary Playoffs with the same time control although I'm not sure we have the same problem with players who like to play their first 10 movess in 55 mins and the last 40 moves with less than 5 mins on the clock!

I could imagine myself roasted over a slow fire if I got one of those games wrong!

Denis_Jessop
16-05-2005, 09:18 PM
Not to mention the (still to be recognised) benefit to Player A had they used a little more of their 42 remaining minutes sometime prior to this occuring :doh:

I think the argument from Player A (after the event) was more along the lines that a player on 9 seconds, who picks up a piece to make an illegal move, has that pointed out, must return it and make an alternative move, all without either clock being pressed - and all in their own remaining 9 seconds - may have drifted very close to zero.

Maybe. As I pointed out.

The problem here, as Geurt Gijssen has pointed out in another context, is that it is, strictly speaking, not permissible for a player to talk to their opponent to point out an illegal move (or, for that matter, any other alleged breach of the Laws of Chess). The proper procedure is for the player to stop the clock and call the arbiter to act on the matter. What happens in practice is another thing, especially in club games.

DJ

PS I'm not sure if Geurt would welcome a question on this matter as he has dealt with the type of situation before but I mention that at Mt Buller Gary Lane told me that Geurt would welcome questions as his supply is drying up - you may have noticed his recent columns have been shorter and lighter on material than a few years ago.

jenni
17-05-2005, 01:02 PM
I was thinking about this last night (instead of sleeping as one has a tendency to do ) and I had another question or rather 2 questions, one being a variation of the other.

1. Libby (DOP) has observed the problem, doesn't stop clocks but comes over to consult with me, we decide to add 2 minutes, plus take time off Player A (who made the illegal move). Meanwhile players have played a few moves further. Player A now has 12 seconds on her clock. What do you do?

2. DOP is not around and doesn't notice anything. Players play on past the problem, but PLayer B has been brooding about what happened and now realises that Player A has gained 10 secs of extra time. She stops clock and calls DOP over. Player A agrees with Player B's version of things. What should be done? (Player A has 12 seconds on clock).

Garvinator
17-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Seeking clarification:

Isnt player A on 42 minutes in the first situation and player B on 9 seconds when the illegal move was made. Therefore Jenni, do you want to change the A and B's around in your two questions?

Bill Gletsos
17-05-2005, 01:23 PM
Seeking clarification:

Isnt player A on 42 minutes in the first situation and player B on 9 seconds when the illegal move was made. Therefore Jenni, do you want to change the A and B's around in your two questions?I think its safe to assume that Jenni just got A and B reversed.

jenni
17-05-2005, 02:07 PM
I think its safe to assume that Jenni just got A and B reversed.

Ah yes - that is why I put brackets after player A and indicated they had made the illegal move, being too lazy to go and read Libby's original post to work out who she had called A and B.

Also assume that the 2 players had corrected the illegal move, so we are not considering whether an illegal move needs to be corrected, but just what to do to compensate Player B (or A or even X - i.e. the one who didn't make the illegal move), for the fact that the illegal move maker has got an extra 10 secs.

Thunderspirit
17-05-2005, 07:02 PM
We played the ACT Women & Girls' Championship this weekend.

Underqualified DOP was moi.

Player A (who shall remain nameless but those who know will know) has about 42 mins on the clock - player B has 9 seconds.

Time control is 60mins plus 10secs from move one.

Player A is down material but King is scuttling around & hiding with some success. Player A plays a Knight move and Player B is in check.

Player B makes an illegal move, presses the clock, and goes to 19 secs.

Player A points out the illegal move and presses the clock.

Player B makes a legal move, presses the clock and now has about 29 seconds on the clock.

In other words, under intense time pressure, Player B has now gained 10seconds more as a consequence of the illegal move.

What should have happened?

What should Player A have done when she noticed the illegal move? Was it more appropriate that she pause the clock rather than press it and return it to player B?

As parent of Player A, the DOP let things go and dealt (nicely) with unhappy Player A after the game. Thankfully we had moved on within 5 minutes and it's no big deal. I just didn't know what to do and didn't want to interfere as a parent of one of the players without knowing exactly what should have occurred. As you might imagine, everything was happening pretty rapidly by this stage anyway.

You can all give me the lecture on the benefits of fantastically qualified and well-paid arbiters later I promise!


Hi Lib,
Firstly two thumps up for doing a job that many find boring or frustrating! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Not me though! :cool:

On the game, I think it partially depends on the your views as a DOP. While player A has gained from making an illegal move, I believe it essentally the players who should seek the DOP to fix this, and the arbiter should really stop the game, minus the extra time and add 2 minutes to the Player B's clock.

This depends on the nature of the event. It was board 111 in the ACTJCL Reserves Championship I may step in, but if it was between two experienced players say Junta and Michael Wei (using juniors to be consistant) than I wouldn't get invloved unless one of the players noticed (which you would expect with two players so strong...)

As for player A, it would have been the 'correct' method to stop the clock, but I think the majority of players, would naturally press the clock so that's forgivable...

But this maybe no good as I'm also a non qualified DOP!

jenni
18-05-2005, 09:33 AM
I've had a private answer to my questions, which I am happy with - all ready to handle the next occurence of this (which will probably be in 10 years time ;) )

Libby
18-05-2005, 06:42 PM
I've had a private answer to my questions, which I am happy with - all ready to handle the next occurence of this (which will probably be in 10 years time ;) )

Definitely never I expect.

Stop thinking about it - I'm sure it's not good for the blood pressure :naughty:

And Lee - it was two relatively experienced people on Board 2 in the final round. You really should have guessed Kayleigh as the player most likely to be 40 mins ahead of another in a game :rolleyes:

I think I did the right thing in the end (other than interrupting Jenni :eek: ) by letting it go. The difficult thing as a parent, when everyone assumes you will show bias towards your own child, is that I am most often guilty of not stepping in when I should to her detriment - hence my interruption of Jenni in case there was a definitive, obvious answer.

Thanks all for your input :clap:

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 12:58 AM
Hello,

Question: What would have happend if Player A had let their clock run out, so as to lose on time?

Cheers fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 01:03 AM
Hello,

Question: What would have happend if Player A had let their clock run out, so as to lose on time?

Cheers fg7Player A has 42 mins in Libbys original question so that would seem very unlikely or are you referring to jenni's question in post #29 where she got her player's A & B back to front.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 10:56 AM
Player A has 42 mins in Libbys original question so that would seem very unlikely or are you referring to jenni's question in post #29 where she got her player's A & B back to front.

No, its a theoretical question. What would have happened if Player A had lost on time?

Cheers Fg7

Thunderspirit
20-05-2005, 11:48 AM
No, its a theoretical question. What would have happened if Player A had lost on time?

Cheers Fg7

I think that depends on the DOP. I know of a situation where two IM's were playing a game which ended in a blitz finish, one player made an illegal move, and player B looking confused trying to work out what happened 'lost' on time. The arbiter awarded a win to the player B. A bit harsh maybe though I can understand the arbiter here. As for the situation you desribed, the mininum would be adding 2min to the clock and starting it from there. I doubt many arbiters would award the game for something like that, especially a jnr event...

This is for Libby: When you orginally talking about the kids being reasonably experience I thought you meant players with a higher experience than Kayleigh. Reasonably experienced kids in ACT Jnr Chess, are kids like Tor. Experienced Kids are Gareth, Shannon, Michael Wei and Peter Jovanovic... (This is just what I had in my head...) You can't to be harsh on Kayleigh... except she shouldn't be so much time up on the clock! :owned:

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 12:44 PM
No, its a theoretical question. What would have happened if Player A had lost on time?Lets look at the following situation.

Player A checks player B.
Player B makes an illegal move and presses player A's clock.
Player A's has virtually no time left on their clock and their flag falls and B claims a win on time.
Player A stops the clocks and summons the Arbiter and points out the illegal move.
The Arbiter determines that B did in fact make an illegal move.
The Arbiter restores the clock times prior to the illegal move.
Player A is awarded 2 extra minutes.
The game continues from that point.

Now if the Arbiter had been present the arbiter should have noticed the illegal move as well as the win on time claim. The arbiter would therefore have followed the same procedure as above.

However if Player A had not realised that Player B had made an illegal move and accepted the loss and only afterwards discovered that B's move was illegal then the result would stand. Player B would be the winner.

Now what if after Player b makes their illegal moves the following ahppens.

Player A makes a move.
Player B and Player A then make a number of consecutive moves.
Player A's flag falls and Player B claims a win on time.
Player A summons the arbiter and now claims the illegal move.
At this time it is possible that position on the board is illegal as B hasd not parried the originally check. However it is also possible the baord position is legal.
If the board position is illegal the arbiter should follow article 7.4 and restore the position as described above.

If the board position is legal then I think its reasonable that the arbiter disallow the illegal move claim and declare the game won by player B. The reasoning being thats its almost like player A has "saved up" their illegal move claim for use later at a more beneficial time. this would also be true if the following sequence had occurred.

Player A checks Player B
Player B makes an illegal move
Player A points out B's illegal move and B corrects it.
Player A then makes a move.
Player B and Player A then make a number of consecutive moves.
Player A's flag falls and Player B claims a win on time.
Player A summons the arbiter and now claims the illegal move.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 01:43 PM
Hello,


Keep it simple.
How does player A prove that the illegal move caused the flag to drop if the arbiter is not present. Surely the best the arbiter can do is to ask the competitors to agree that Player A had time before the flag fall. This is obviously a loophole if the players are at a disagreement. In fact I witnessed such a disagreement occuring in time trouble, with the arbiter being present.

The game was between Solomon and Rujevic a number of years ago at Elwood. Despite Gary Becker being present, in the inevitable time scramble, the arbiter was unable to confirm the legitimacy of an illegal move claim.

This is why rule 13.3 is such a wise rule, but not flawless. Moreover, it may not be practically observable with multiple blitz finishes. I also believe that rule 12.5 may cast some doubt on the integrity of illegal moves implicit in 7.4. Especially if the illegal move was deliberate, which is of course almost impossible to police.

While the two cases are slightly different they also show that all decisions are at the arbiters discretion and ought not be interpreted literally all the time.

Cheers fg7

Garvinator
20-05-2005, 02:03 PM
players are also responsible for stopping the clock to claim any rule infraction. If the player failed to stop the clock in time, bad luck. It is their responsibility.

pax
20-05-2005, 02:35 PM
players are also responsible for stopping the clock to claim any rule infraction. If the player failed to stop the clock in time, bad luck. It is their responsibility.

Yes that's true, but if the board position is illegal, then player B cannot claim a win on time. The game must be reconstructed, which means player A will be awarded 2 minutes for the infraction.

Your approach may be reasonable in a sense if the players have sizable increments, but it would be totally unreasonable if it is a guillotine finish.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 02:38 PM
players are also responsible for stopping the clock to claim any rule infraction. If the player failed to stop the clock in time, bad luck. It is their responsibility.Overly simplistic and thus incorrect.

Player B makes an illegal move.
Player A does not realise immediately that it is illegal.
whilst contemplating their move their flag falls and B claims a win on time.
At this point A determines that B's move was illegal.
Under these circumstance the arbiter should not award the win to B but instead restore the position immediately prior to the illegal move and award A 2 minutes.

A player should clearly not be able to win a game on time if the move they have just made is illegal and results in the opponents flag falling.

This logically follows from Artciles 5.1a, 5.2a and 5.2b where the final move must be a legal move.,

pax
20-05-2005, 02:40 PM
How does player A prove that the illegal move caused the flag to drop if the arbiter is not present. Surely the best the arbiter can do is to ask the competitors to agree that Player A had time before the flag fall.

I don't think this is a problem at all.

If player A's flag fell after B made an illegal move, then it doesn't matter as the position will be illegal when B attempts to claim a win on time. The position must be restored, and A will recieve extra time.

If the flag fell before B made an illegal move, then B has missed his opportunity to claim the win - he cannot now claim as the position is illegal. Again, the position is restored, and A recieves extra time.

firegoat7
20-05-2005, 02:59 PM
I don't think this is a problem at all.

If player A's flag fell after B made an illegal move, then it doesn't matter as the position will be illegal when B attempts to claim a win on time. The position must be restored, and A will recieve extra time.

If the flag fell before B made an illegal move, then B has missed his opportunity to claim the win - he cannot now claim as the position is illegal. Again, the position is restored, and A recieves extra time.

No it is a definate problem Pax. I think gg may be somewhat right if the arbiter is not present, however it is not clear cut.

Point 1: The position has to be reconstructable, not always possible.
Point 2: If the position is not reconstructable then the arbiter requires evidence to explain events. It may not be always possible to come to an agreement about when the flag fell. Clearly if both players agree its not a problem.

Conclusion: GG may be right to insist on flag if the players disagree about the moment of flag fall. However, I would be very hesitant to give somebody a win when the position was illegal on the board. Nevertheless, like I said the result involves communication with the players. Im sure the point could go either way dependent on the reasons given. A strange anomilty.

Cheers Fg7

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 03:32 PM
Hello,

Keep it simple.Actually it isnt, thats the problem.

How does player A prove that the illegal move caused the flag to drop if the arbiter is not present.Its not relevant to prove the illegal move caused the flag to drop. As noted in Article 6.9 a flag fall is valid when the arbiter observes it or when a player makes a claim.
Thats why it is important for the player to summon the arbiter as soon as the illegal move is made. In such cases where the position is illegal e.g. king in check then the arbiter can see it and the clock is irrelevant. The problem occurs when the illegal move is something like a knight on f3 moving to d5. If the players disagree then without evidence the arbiter would have to rule in favour of the win on time claim.

Surely the best the arbiter can do is to ask the competitors to agree that Player A had time before the flag fall. This is obviously a loophole if the players are at a disagreement.No the arbiter should give priority to what he sees on the board as compared to what he sees on the clock. As I noted above if the position is illegal on the board then that takes precedence over the flag fall.

There is the following analogous situation.
Player A makes a move that will mate player B.
Player A release the piece but before he can stop his clock his flag falls.
Player B claims a win on time.
In the above situation the game ended as soon as player A's hand released the piece and the flag fall is irrelevant as it occurred after the game ended.

However what if the following would have happend.

Before player A can release the piece on the square his flag falls and B claims a win on time.
An argument develops and the arbiter is summoned.
A claims to have mated B and B claims the flag fell before the piece was released. There are no reliable witnesses.
In this circumstance the arbiter should declare the game won for player A as their is a mate on the board where as there is no evidence to support B's claim that the flag fell first.
Geurt notes this in one of his columns when he says "Suppose that at the same moment White mates his opponent his flag falls. In that case what happens on the board is relevant: the mating move finishes the game. Even when it is not clear what happened first –mate or flag fall- mate is decisive."
The result in this case is in essence no different from the situation where A mates B and releases the piece but has not stopped the clock before his flag falls.


In fact I witnessed such a disagreement occuring in time trouble, with the arbiter being present.I can understand why that would be a problem.

The game was between Solomon and Rujevic a number of years ago at Elwood. Despite Gary Becker being present, in the inevitable time scramble, the arbiter was unable to confirm the legitimacy of an illegal move claim.I assume there were no other reliable witnesses.

This is why rule 13.3 is such a wise rule, but not flawless. Moreover, it may not be practically observable with multiple blitz finishes.Agreed.

I also believe that rule 12.5 may cast some doubt on the integrity of illegal moves implicit in 7.4.I see no reason to support this view.

Especially if the illegal move was deliberate, which is of course almost impossible to police.Agreed but I dont believe 12.5 can be used unless you as the arbiter can prove that the illegal move was made deliberately.

While the two cases are slightly different they also show that all decisions are at the arbiters discretion and ought not be interpreted literally all the time.True, however the arbiters should follow the rules where the rules explicitly state what should be done and do not allow any discretion on the part of the arbiter. If not the arbiter is likely to have their decision overturned on appeal.

Bill Gletsos
20-05-2005, 04:09 PM
No it is a definate problem Pax. I think gg may be somewhat right if the arbiter is not present, however it is not clear cut.

Point 1: The position has to be reconstructable, not always possible.
Point 2: If the position is not reconstructable then the arbiter requires evidence to explain events. It may not be always possible to come to an agreement about when the flag fell. Clearly if both players agree its not a problem.Article 7.4 makes it clear that if the position immediately before the irregularity cannot be determined then the position should go back to the last identifiable position prior to the illegal move and the game continued.

Conclusion: GG may be right to insist on flag if the players disagree about the moment of flag fall.Firstly only if the players disagree about there being an illegal move (otherwise 7.4 is in effect) and then only if the position on the board is a legal position.

However, I would be very hesitant to give somebody a win when the position was illegal on the board.In this circumstance Article 7.4 should be followed completely. In a game where no scoresheets were used (rapid) it may eventuate that the last identifiable position prior to the illegal move was back at move 1. :hmm:

Libby
20-05-2005, 08:14 PM
This is for Libby: When you orginally talking about the kids being reasonably experience I thought you meant players with a higher experience than Kayleigh. Reasonably experienced kids in ACT Jnr Chess, are kids like Tor. Experienced Kids are Gareth, Shannon, Michael Wei and Peter Jovanovic... (This is just what I had in my head...) You can't to be harsh on Kayleigh... except she shouldn't be so much time up on the clock! :owned:

Now Lee - at this tournament, Kayleigh looked pretty experienced. It's a relative thing. On one board, mate-in-one took almost 10 moves to achieve :wall:

Can I slip in the story about a recent tournament when I walked past a board with a rook, bishop and pawn on the board.

I ask "Who won this one?"

Answer - "We're still playing." :eek:

As an inexperienced arbiter, I was forced to call for a second opinion :lol:

Spiny Norman
21-05-2005, 11:16 AM
On one board, mate-in-one took almost 10 moves to achieve :wall:

My lad's junior game the other night was "interesting". Jared was tied up in knots on the back rank. His opponent had mate-in-one (a very simple QxP++). I walked out of the room and commented to my wife "Jared lost his first game tonight". Two minutes later Jared appeared and said "I won again". :hmm: His opponent missed the mate-in-one for three consecutive moves and Jared swindled him out of it with his own back-rank mate. Not a pretty way to win.

jenni
21-05-2005, 07:24 PM
Now Lee - at this tournament, Kayleigh looked pretty experienced. It's a relative thing. On one board, mate-in-one took almost 10 moves to achieve :wall:

Can I slip in the story about a recent tournament when I walked past a board with a rook, bishop and pawn on the board.

I ask "Who won this one?"

Answer - "We're still playing." :eek:

As an inexperienced arbiter, I was forced to call for a second opinion :lol:

She turned to Tony and asked him to adjudicate - I'm thinking "what's she going on about, this is easy - errr ..... where have the kings gone!"

jenni
21-05-2005, 07:28 PM
Stop thinking about it - I'm sure it's not good for the blood pressure :naughty:

:
It was 196/115 when I got back from Belconnen last night - Tony has banned me from BCC for a month, however we are still negotiating....