PDA

View Full Version : Chesscafe article



Garvinator
20-08-2005, 07:54 PM
This article appeared in the arbiters notebook section by Geurt Gijssen.

Question 2 In another game, a position similiar to the following was reached:

(if someone wants to add the fen for the position, feel free) http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm


After few useless king moves by both players, White offered a draw, but Black refused, and the arbiter was called. Although the game was played in Fischer mode (90min+30sec) the arbiter enforced the draw. His point was that this was a “dead position.” I agreed with his decision, but was it legal? Yours, Naji Alradhi (UAE)

Answer 1 It is not explicitly written in the Laws of Chess, but it is implied. Here are some examples.

In the Preface:
The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgment and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgment and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors.

The arbiter should be flexible, especially with young players, and the youth of a player may be considered a special factor.

Article 13.2:
The arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. He should ensure that a good playing environment is maintained and that the players are not disturbed. He shall supervise the progress of the competition.

The first sentence of this article is important and I am always inclined to add: and the players.

Answer 2 I do not blame the arbiter for his decision, but I would have waited before doing likewise. It is clear that White, who had the better position, cannot lose. He could have easily made 50 king moves and then claimed a draw. Moreover, the clock time wasn’t a problem, because they were using Fischer mode.


What do people think of this under the rules? Can the arbiter step and declare the game drawn in 90/30, since 10.2 isnt valid?

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2005, 12:23 AM
Note that Answer 1 in the text quoted by Garvin refers to a different question, about whether the game could be suspended for 10 minutes to allow a junior with a headache time to recover. Only answer 2 is relevant to the question about the "dead position" (which, by the way, has a formal definition under the Laws and this isn't one!)

I agree with Gijssen's response - there is no need to declare a draw so why should the arbiter use a rather contentious discretion to do so? Further, with both players required to score the game will surely be a triple rep before long.

Perhaps if, in addition to refusing the draw, Black was deliberately moving very slowly and wasting time, I would step in and use the disrepute rule to warn Black that playing on in this position in a time-wasting manner is vexatious. Aside from the disrepute rule I do not see what authority the referee has to impose a draw.

antichrist
21-08-2005, 12:27 AM
Note that Answer 1 in the text quoted by Garvin refers to a different question, about whether the game could be suspended for 10 minutes to allow a junior with a headache time to recover. Only answer 2 is relevant to the question about the "dead position" (which, by the way, has a formal definition under the Laws and this isn't one!)

I agree with Gijssen's response - there is no need to declare a draw so why should the arbiter use a rather contentious discretion to do so? Further, with both players required to score the game will surely be a triple rep before long.

Perhaps if, in addition to refusing the draw, Black was deliberately moving very slowly and wasting time, I would step in and use the disrepute rule to warn Black that playing on in this position in a time-wasting manner is vexatious. Aside from the disrepute rule I do not see what authority the referee has to impose a draw.

I seen incompetent players at GC even not knowing how to proceed to end a game and kept whole tourney waiting ages as an increment game. There must be some provision for dealing with this. Was not necessary to write moves down so no tab on 50 rule move. Could arbiter enforce 50 rule move or only players?

I am not going to any more time increment tourneys because of this - I was already against beforehand.

Instead of chess being a brilliant waste of time, the above game-ending made it a stupid waste of time.

Garvinator
21-02-2007, 02:41 PM
Cant find the right thread, so this general one will do. If the correct thread is found by someone else, can this be added to it please?

Question Dear Mr Gijssen,
the following situation occurred at the Czech Blitz championship: White checked the black king, Black left his king in check and made another move, after which White’s flag fell. Black claimed a win on time, but White claimed a win on an illegal move. The tournament director ruled that a new game should be played, but in my opinion White should win the game. What is your opinion?

Answer by Geurt:
Answer Two Articles are essential in this case:

An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made his own move.

The flag is considered to have fallen when a player has made a valid claim to that effect.

It seems that both players made a valid claim. This is probably the reason that they were required to play a new game. However, we can also look at it by way of:

* The order of the events: Black completed an illegal move and then White’s flag fell.

* The order of the claims: Black claimed a win on time and then White claimed that Black had completed an illegal move.

In my opinion the order of events is more important than the order of the claims; therefore, I agree that White deserved to win the game.

I had thought that this type of situation has been discussed on here previously and it was agreed that the order of claims is the relevant factor. I remember Belthasar raising this or a very similar issue from a blitz tournament he played on the Gold Coast.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2007, 07:27 PM
Yes. The order of claims matters. Geurt talks about the order of claims but actually the info given by Bielavsky doesn't say which happened first, it only says "Black claimed a win on time, but White claimed a win on an illegal move."

I'm assuming they were using a digital clock which freezes on flagfall. On that assumption, if I was watching and Black said "Time!" and White then said "Illegal move!" I would award the game to Black. If I was watching and White said "Illegal move!" but Black then said "But your time's up" I would award the win to White. If it was not clear who had claimed first (eg I hadn't been watching and I came to the table to find both players trying to claim) then I would award the win to White on the grounds that if in doubt, what happens on the board trumps what happens on the clock. "Replay the game" is understandable but in my view wrong.

Denis_Jessop
21-02-2007, 09:04 PM
Yes. The order of claims matters. Geurt talks about the order of claims but actually the info given by Bielavsky doesn't say which happened first, it only says "Black claimed a win on time, but White claimed a win on an illegal move."

I'm assuming they were using a digital clock which freezes on flagfall. On that assumption, if I was watching and Black said "Time!" and White then said "Illegal move!" I would award the game to Black. If I was watching and White said "Illegal move!" but Black then said "But your time's up" I would award the win to White. If it was not clear who had claimed first (eg I hadn't been watching and I came to the table to find both players trying to claim) then I would award the win to White on the grounds that if in doubt, what happens on the board trumps what happens on the clock. "Replay the game" is understandable but in my view wrong.

This is an interesting situation. I think that Geurt's conclusion may well be sustainable but not for the reason he gives though he may be thinking along the lines I shall state. It seems to me that the answer may turn on the meaning of "a valid claim" in Rapidplay law B7. Geurt says that both players made a valid claim. This is a slightly odd statement in that Blitz Law C3 on illegal moves says nothing about the need for "a valid claim". Geurt seems to assume that all that is needed to establish a valid claim under B7 is the fact that the flag has fallen. But there is a well-known legal principle that a person cannot profit from his own wrongdoing. Thus it seems possible to argue that a person who has made an illegal move that is the subject of a (valid) claim under C3 cannot validly claim a win on time under B7. In that case the arbiter should have ruled that Black's claim was invalid and White won on the basis of his claim. The sequence of claims is irrelevant. But the claim under C3 has to be determined first, whenever it was made, so as to establish whether the claim under B7 is valid. It may even be that the Arbiter can rule that the B7 claim is invalid if he can see from his own observation that the B7 claimant has made an illegal move immediately before his claim even if it was not claimed by opponent. I add that my suggested analysis is consistent with the provisions of Art 5.2 requiring mate etc to be delivered by a legal move.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2007, 09:59 PM
But there is a well-known legal principle that a person cannot profit from his own wrongdoing. Thus it seems possible to argue that a person who has made an illegal move that is the subject of a (valid) claim under C3 cannot validly claim a win on time under B7.

Good point and I don't think this came up in the previous discussion.

I think the arbiter would be entitled to rule along the lines you're suggesting if there was any suspicion of benefit gained - eg if the illegal move contributed to the opponent overstepping or to them being the first to overstep. For instance say A has one second left and B has two, and A quickly makes an illegal move then presses the clock, and B's flag falls. Then A has unfairly benefited from the illegal move (since had he made a legal one then (i) he might have lost on time making it (ii) B might not have lost on time responding to it, since there's often hesitation when an illegal move arose). In this case A's claim of a win on time should be disallowed and B's claim of illegal move upheld.

But if the player making the illegal move didn't really profit from it (eg the opponent was doomed on the clock anyway and it just happened that the last move made before their flag fell was illegal) then I wouldn't regard benefit as a reason to dismiss the win on time claim. So say A has two minutes and B has two seconds and no mating threats, and after several seconds' thought A makes an illegal move, and B's flag falls. B was going to lose on time anyway so A gains no advantage from the illegal move.

Phil Bourke
21-02-2007, 11:26 PM
Kevin, in one scenario you suggest that the player claiming the win on time gains an advantage from his illegal move, then counter that if this player has an ample time advantage, then their was no advantage from the illegal move so he shouldn't be penalised for the illegal move. Seems a strange way to make such a decision since the rules states that an illegal move can end the game immediately if the opponent claims it, no mention of the amount of time left on your clock being a factor.
Your method of ruling in this case would really open yourself to claims of bias because you would be basing your ruling on a co-factor that isn't relevant in the event of an illegal move.
I much prefer the order of events trumping the order of claims in this situation. As you said yourself, a person may be thrown for several seconds by an illegal move, so if a person sits there for 3-5 seconds to determine that it is an illegal move before making a false claim, and the other player then claims a win on time when the flagfalls after 2 seconds. I would award the game against the player who made the illegal move everytime, simply because if he had time, he shouldn't have played an illegal move. Also, if he had done it deliberately to offset his opponent for those crucial seconds, that would reinforce the decision to adjudge the game as lost for him.

Kevin Bonham
21-02-2007, 11:41 PM
Kevin, in one scenario you suggest that the player claiming the win on time gains an advantage from his illegal move, then counter that if this player has an ample time advantage, then their was no advantage from the illegal move so he shouldn't be penalised for the illegal move. Seems a strange way to make such a decision since the rules states that an illegal move can end the game immediately if the opponent claims it, no mention of the amount of time left on your clock being a factor.

My last post should be read in the context of my previous one which Denis then replied to. What I am saying is that the player who made the illegal move should not be penalised for it in this case provided that:

(i) They claimed the win on time before the opponent could claim illegal move.
(ii) The illegal move did not contribute significantly to the opponent's flag falling first.

(The latter proviso is added in response to Denis's post.)

My reason for this is simple: both playing an illegal move and running out of time are situations that normally justify a loss. So whoever claims the win first gets it, unless the opponent doesn't deserve to lose because the illegal move caused them to run out of time.

By the way, the rules do not state that a successful illegal move claim immediately ends the game. The situations which are stated to end the game immediately are:

* Checkmate
* Stalemate
* Dead position
* Resignation
* Draw agreement
* A claim for draw by triple repetition or 50 move rule is found by the arbiter to be valid


Your method of ruling in this case would really open yourself to claims of bias because you would be basing your ruling on a co-factor that isn't relevant in the event of an illegal move.

Even if I was doing something wrong here I would be leaving myself open to claims of incompetence, not bias. :P


I much prefer the order of events trumping the order of claims in this situation. As you said yourself, a person may be thrown for several seconds by an illegal move, so if a person sits there for 3-5 seconds to determine that it is an illegal move before making a false claim, and the other player then claims a win on time when the flagfalls after 2 seconds. I would award the game against the player who made the illegal move everytime, simply because if he had time, he shouldn't have played an illegal move. Also, if he had done it deliberately to offset his opponent for those crucial seconds, that would reinforce the decision to adjudge the game as lost for him.

So what would you do if player B oversteps the time limit, player A (who has heaps of time) claims a win on time and then five minutes later B says "Oh, A's last move was illegal, I claim a win by illegal move"?

Phil Bourke
22-02-2007, 01:02 PM
Your example is now stretching the limits. I was thinking of those situations where they are near simultaneous events, no matter which way they occur.
In your example, I would find it hard not to say that if it took you 5 mins to notice an illegal move........you may be better off playing correspondence chess :D
But would probably resort to a polite, "That's unfortunate, you should have pointed that out at the time your opponent claimed the win on time."
By the way, you should be aware that incompetence equals bias in the eyes of some ;)

Trent Parker
22-02-2007, 01:23 PM
:D just for fun lets make it more complicated.

Lets say player A plays check; Player B plays a checkmating move; Player B claims a win on time. Player A claims a win by illegal move. Player B claims illegal move played after mate. lol.

[lol ADDENDUM then the arbiter comes and notices that both flags have fallen]

Dont mind me i'm only joking :D

Garvinator
22-02-2007, 01:35 PM
By the way, you should be aware that incompetence equals bias in the eyes of some ;)This is true because sometimes it is very hard to believe that someone could be that unintentionally incompetent ;)

Kevin Bonham
22-02-2007, 03:55 PM
Lets say player A plays check; Player B plays a checkmating move; Player B claims a win on time. Player A claims a win by illegal move. Player B claims illegal move played after mate. lol.

Mate by illegal move doesn't cut the mustard - I have won two key blitz games like that.


Your example is now stretching the limits. I was thinking of those situations where they are near simultaneous events, no matter which way they occur.

That seems a fair enough distinction. I still think the order of claims is relevant, where it can be clearly established.


By the way, you should be aware that incompetence equals bias in the eyes of some ;)

Yes. But they are either incompetent or biased. :owned: