PDA

View Full Version : Mobile phone goes off: what score for opponent?



Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2007, 07:34 PM
This question came up in the QLD open. A player's mobile went off, and the arbiter forfeited him as per his duty under Article 12.2b. The arbiter had even warned before R1 that this would happen, so he was more than fair.

So what about "The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter." There is no explicit guidance. The arbiter concerned quite reasonably suggested that it should be treated like a flagfall as per 6.10 "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." In this case, the score would be 0-1/2 (how to rate this is another question).

However, one could make a case that the arbiter should apply 10:2b "He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."

As the rule stands, the arbiter could decide by either of these criteria, or neither for that matter, and this seems to be a defect in the rules.

A problem with applying 6:10 is that it could be a very hard-to-detect way of throwing a game. And there would be many bad feelings if a major prize was decided by a gift point won not on any merit over the chessboard or even in superiority in handling the "33rd piece".

And 7.4b is a parallel for not necessarily applying 6:10, since the penalty of a third illegal move is loss except, "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game." So here, the score is not necessarily 0-1/2.

One could also argue that 10:2 is a closer parallel to 12.2b than 6:10 because 6:10 is completely deterministic, while 10:2 leaves some discretion to the arbiter as 12.2 does.

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2007, 10:46 PM
This question came up in the QLD open. A player's mobile went off, and the arbiter forfeited him as per his duty under Article 12.2b. The arbiter had even warned before R1 that this would happen, so he was more than fair.Actually the player is not forfeited. The arbiter simply declares the game lost for him.

So what about "The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter." There is no explicit guidance. The arbiter concerned quite reasonably suggested that it should be treated like a flagfall as per 6.10 "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." In this case, the score would be 0-1/2 (how to rate this is another question).Correct. If the opponent cannot deliver checkmate by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay then the opponents score should be scored as 0.5.

However, one could make a case that the arbiter should apply 10:2b "He shall declare the game drawn if he agrees that the final position cannot be won by normal means, or that the opponent was not making sufficient attempts to win by normal means."No, this is not correct. For 10.2b to even be considered to possibly even apply in this situation not only must a player firstly have the move and also have less than two minutes remaining on his clock, the player must also make a claim. Clearly no such claim can be made by the player if he has been declared lost by the arbiter as per 12.2b.

As the rule stands, the arbiter could decide by either of these criteria, or neither for that matter, and this seems to be a defect in the rules.Incorrect.

A problem with applying 6:10 is that it could be a very hard-to-detect way of throwing a game. And there would be many bad feelings if a major prize was decided by a gift point won not on any merit over the chessboard or even in superiority in handling the "33rd piece".Irrelevant as 10.2 never applies as described above.

And 7.4b is a parallel for not necessarily applying 6:10, since the penalty of a third illegal move is loss except, "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game." So here, the score is not necessarily 0-1/2.Incorrect.

One could also argue that 10:2 is a closer parallel to 12.2b than 6:10 because 6:10 is completely deterministic, while 10:2 leaves some discretion to the arbiter as 12.2 does.10.2 never applies if a mobile phone rings.

Kevin Bonham
10-04-2007, 11:06 PM
And 7.4b is a parallel for not necessarily applying 6:10, since the penalty of a third illegal move is loss except, "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game." So here, the score is not necessarily 0-1/2.

I was not aware that was actually the correct text of 7.4b as my printed copy doesn't have that text in it! However I have checked the FIDE website and the current text there is indeed what you have above. Strange.

I agree with your point re 7.4b differing from 6.10. I am not convinced that 10.2 is a better parallel since 10.2 applies in a claim situation and only at some time controls for which it is necessary - there is no explicit parallel to it in other disciplinary contexts.

I can see a very small risk of a player being unjustly punished by an opponent's mobile going off if 10.2 is used as a model. For instance with a 2 second increment (often used in blitz and sometimes rapid) if the opponent is almost out of time and the position complex it is legitimate (in my view, though some may find it a little bit dodgy) to piece-shuffle rapidly and see if the opponent runs out of time. This may better maximise winning chances in a nearly inevitably won situation anyway than slowing down to play the best moves and giving the opponent thinking time. If the opponent can't move fast enough and loses on time that's their problem for getting so low on time in a blitz or rapid game and then not being willing to quickly play dodgy moves. However if a mobile phone goes off in this case and a 10.2b-like condition is invoked then the piece-shuffler is deemed to be not trying to win OTB and is only awarded a draw. I would say this is probably wrong and the piece-shuffler should be awarded a win which was the likely outcome of the game otherwise in any case. But that is a very unusual case.

I agree with you that the arbiter has discretion to apply it in cases not analogous to 6.10 depending on the situation. I would have no problem with an arbiter deciding to award a draw rather than a win in any of these cases:

* cannot possibly checkmate
* not trying to win OTB (except for making realistic attempts to win on the clock in a game with small increments)
* cannot win by normal means
* suspicion of dodgy behaviour (in this case 0-0 should also be considered)

etc.

Note that 12.8 also leaves discretion to the arbiter.

I would also support an arbiter deciding not to award a draw in any 10.2 analogous case not analogous to anything else. I assume we are all agreed that a player who cannot possibly checkmate should not be awarded a full point by a mobile phone ringing under any circumstances, unless perhaps it is the culmination of a series of offences that may have previously affected the game?

Depasquale's "The Rook" story has a very funny satire of the whole business of the arbiter deciding the score of the opponent. It is certainly a rubbery area because of FIDE's habitual failure to be clearly either precise or non-precise.

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2007, 11:38 PM
I was not aware that was actually the correct text of 7.4b as my printed copy doesn't have that text in it! However I have checked the FIDE website and the current text there is indeed what you have above. Strange.The original wording of 7.4b appeared in the 2001 Laws of Chess. In those rules the article stopped at the end of the sentence "....for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player."

In fact my Edition of Stewart Reuben's 3rd Edition of his handbook covering the 2005 Laws has 7.4b exactly the same as the 2001 Laws.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2007, 11:47 PM
This question came up in the QLD open. A player's mobile went off, and the arbiter forfeited him as per his duty under Article 12.2b. The arbiter had even warned before R1 that this would happen, so he was more than fair.


Actually the player is not forfeited. The arbiter simply declares the game lost for him.

A distinction without a difference.


No, this is not correct. For 10.2b to even be considered to possibly even apply in this situation not only must a player firstly have the move and also have less than two minutes remaining on his clock, the player must also make a claim. Clearly no such claim can be made by the player if he has been declared lost by the arbiter as per 12.2b.

That's not what I meant. Rather, it was an analogy, and no analogy is perfect. I.e., it's not that 10:2b applies, but an arbiter can make an analogy to this case that a player who cannot win by normal means should not get a full point.


As the rule stands, the arbiter could decide by either of these criteria, or neither for that matter, and this seems to be a defect in the rules.


Incorrect.

Nice ipse dixit, but I am perfectly correct. Since an arbiter is given free reign to decide the score, he can apply whatever parallel he likes -- decide by analogy of what he would do in the case of a flag fall, or by analogy of how he would decide a draw claim, or his criteria could be as Kevin Bonham listed.

Basil
10-04-2007, 11:55 PM
ipse dixit
10 HCDs. Nah, make it 20!

Bill Gletsos
10-04-2007, 11:57 PM
A distinction without a difference.Incorrect yet again.
Games lost on forfeit are not FIDE rated. Games lost when a players mobile phone rings are. The same is true for ACF rating.

That's not what I meant. Rather, it was an analogy, and no analogy is perfect. I.e., it's not that 10:2b applies, but an arbiter can make an analogy to this case that a player who cannot win by normal means should not get a full point.That analogy is bogus.
The normal means claim of 10.2 requires a specific number of conditions to be met. They do not apply in the case od a mobile phone ringing.

Nice ipse dixit, but I am perfectly correct.Stick with creationism because as an arbiter you dont know what you are talking about.

Since an arbiter is given free reign to decide the score, he can apply whatever parallel he likes -- decide by analogy of what he would do in the case of a flag fall, or by analogy of how he would decide a draw claim, or his criteria could be as Kevin Bonham listed.And that arbiter would have it immediately overturned on appeal by any competent appeals committee.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 12:01 AM
I agree with you that the arbiter has discretion to apply it in cases not analogous to 6.10 depending on the situation. I would have no problem with an arbiter deciding to award a draw rather than a win in any of these cases:

* cannot possibly checkmate
* not trying to win OTB (except for making realistic attempts to win on the clock in a game with small increments)
* cannot win by normal means
* suspicion of dodgy behaviour (in this case 0-0 should also be considered)

Good thoughts.


I assume we are all agreed that a player who cannot possibly checkmate should not be awarded a full point by a mobile phone ringing under any circumstances, unless perhaps it is the culmination of a series of offences that may have previously affected the game?

For sure.


Depasquale's "The Rook" story has a very funny satire of the whole business of the arbiter deciding the score of the opponent.

Is that online or in his book?


It is certainly a rubbery area because of FIDE's habitual failure to be clearly either precise or non-precise.

Yeah, the Preface to the Laws is something of a cop-out. That's why we are left with "Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations, which are discussed in the Laws. " Hence my suggested analogous situations, with the imperfections inherent therein.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:13 AM
Interestingly in Geurt's Arbiter's Notebook of June 2006 (geurt99.pdf) he quotes Article 7.4 (he incorrectly refers to it as 7.3) as follows:


a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move, including failing to
meet the requirements of the promotion of a pawn or capturing the
opponent’s king, has been completed, the position immediately before
the irregularity shall be reinstated. If the position immediately before
the irregularity cannot be determined, the game shall continue from
the last identifiable position prior to the irregularity. The clocks shall
be adjusted according to Article 6.14. Article 4.3 applies to the move
replacing the illegal move. The game shall then continue from this
reinstated position.
b. After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal
moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his
opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player,
the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.Given this is 12 months after the 2005 rules came into effect it is indeed strange that he leaves out the sentence "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game."/
Sonce that sentence is also missing in my copy of Stewart Reuben's 3rd Edition Handbook then perhaps the FIDE website is in error.

Rincewind
11-04-2007, 12:24 AM
Correct. If the opponent cannot deliver checkmate by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay then the opponents score should be scored as 0.5.

Another interesting option is if neither player can checkmate by any legal series of moves. In this case then 9.6 should be applied BEFORE the phone rang? Therefore the game should be awarded 1/2-1/2 not 0-1/2

9.6 The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Seems no claim needs to be made by either player for this to apply. So if this was on the board before the phone rang then the game was drawn before the phone rang. So since the game is finished, the player's statues reverts to that ot spectator and then the arbiter can take action against the offending person as a spectator, not a player.

Basil
11-04-2007, 12:26 AM
Another interesting option is if neither player can checkmate by any legal series of moves. In this case then 9.6 should be applied BEFORE the phone rang?
It might be FIDE on the line with a ruling.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Another interesting option is if neither player can checkmate by any legal series of moves. In this case then 9.6 should be applied BEFORE the phone rang? Therefore the game should be awarded 1/2-1/2 not 0-1/2

9.6 The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing this position was legal.

Seems no claim needs to be made by either player for this to apply. So if this was on the board before the phone rang then the game was drawn before the phone rang. So since the game is finished, the player's statues reverts to that ot spectator and then the arbiter can take action against the offending person as a spectator, not a player.Yes if 9.6 occurs prior to the phone ringing the game is drawn.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:44 AM
I note that my post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=48289&postcount=93 from March 2005 lists the 2005 FIDE rules from the FIDE webwite that duiffered from the 2001 rules.

In Article 7.4b no mention is made of the sentence "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game.".

Also this post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=66097&postcount=112 from August 2008 also doesnt include that sentence in 7.4b which I would have copied from the FIDE website.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2007, 12:44 AM
My version of the Laws is the one that appeared as an insert in Australian Chess. I suspect the FIDE website version is indeed in error. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Assuming the correct wording is as given by Gijssen then one thing I note is that there is nothing explicit in 7.4b to suggest that the arbiter can decide on any score other than a 1 for the opponent. Yet it is explicit in 12.2b and 12.8 that the arbiter decides. So even with the correct wording of 7.4b I am not sure 7.4b is totally analogous. They are very probably all meant to be treated the same but the wording has been sloppy. Possibly FIDE should unify all of loss by flagfall, loss by mobile, loss by three illegal moves and loss for severe or repeated violations under a single paragraph saying how the score of the opponent should be dealt with in any such case.

Until then an arbiter could reasonably argue that if FIDE had meant to take away discretion then they could have done so by being explicit, therefore it should be assumed the arbiter does have some discretion. But the general convention of interpretation that seems to be developing around this rule is to use it in the same way as 6.10.


Is that online or in his book?

It was published in Australian Chess Forum but a zip file containing it and other columns he published at chesscafe.com can be downloaded from here (http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#View%20From%20Down%20Under).

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:54 AM
On doing some checking I note that back prior to the 2004 FIDE Congress the words "If the opponent cannot checkmate the player by any possible series of legal moves even with the most unskilled counterplay, the arbiter shall decide the result of the game." were planned to be added to Article 7.4 in the proposed 2005 Laws.

However as I noted in post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=33892&postcount=4 this did not happen.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2007, 01:08 AM
I thought that might be the case.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 01:20 AM
The following is a quote from Geurt in his May 2006 notebook.


I think the matter is simpler than you suggest. And, for this, I refer to
Article 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.

This means that the opponent of the player whose mobile rang would
normally receive 1 point, except when 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, in which case they would receive a
half-point. An example of such a position is if the opponent only has a king.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 01:23 AM
I thought that might be the case.Also I can find no mention in any Minutes from a FIDE Rules Commision meeting that 7.4b was missing this sentence.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 01:45 AM
A distinction without a difference.


Incorrect yet again.
Games lost on forfeit are not FIDE rated. Games lost when a players mobile phone rings are. The same is true for ACF rating.

Forfeit is a good enough synonym for loss in this context (heard of a thesaurus?), despite your ridiculous pedantry ("unwarranted semantic disjunction" is the pedantic name for your brand of pedantry). Good grief, see "6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise." The word "loss", not "forfeit", is used here for a game that is not rated.


That analogy is bogus.

As long are there are common factors, this is not so.


Stick with creationism because as an arbiter you dont know what you are talking about.

And mere chess dilettantes like you who are neither masters (as I am) nor IAs should stick to things you are competent in (whatever that is -- maybe being a swaggering bully in your little fiefdom?).


Since an arbiter is given free reign to decide the score, he can apply whatever parallel he likes -- decide by analogy of what he would do in the case of a flag fall, or by analogy of how he would decide a draw claim, or his criteria could be as Kevin Bonham listed.


And that arbiter would have it immediately overturned on appeal by any competent appeals committee.

How could they? What part of "The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter" don't you understand? Nothing about "determined by the appeals committee". If an arbiter's decision on 10.2 is explicitly stated to be final -- any reason to think any differently about 12.2?

Now, any sensible comments from anyone about how to achieve arbiterial consistency on this?

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:04 AM
Forfeit is a good enough synonym for loss in this context (heard of a thesaurus?), despite your ridiculous pedantry ("unwarranted semantic disjunction" is the pedantic name for your brand of pedantry).Good grief, see "6.7 Any player who arrives at the chessboard more than one hour after the scheduled start of the session shall lose the game unless the rules of the competition specify or the arbiter decides otherwise." The word "loss", not "forfeit", is used here for a game that is not rated.Actually the Laws of chess dont stipulate what a forfeit is. However unplayed games are considered forfeits and are not FIDE rated.
As such there is a difference between a forfeited (unplayed game) and a game declared lost for a player by the arbiter.

As long are there are common factors, this is not so.As I said your analogy is bogus. In fact the Chairman of the Rules Commision makes it clear how to apply 12.2b in as I quoted above.

And mere chess dilettantes like you who are neither masters (as I am) nor IAs should stick to things you are competent in (whatever that is -- maybe being a swaggering bully in your little fiefdom?).Just because you are an FM doesnt mean you know the Laws of Chess therefore stick to something you are competent in because it sure isnt the Laws of Chess.
Also just because someone isnt an IA doesnt mean they dont know the Laws of Chess much better than an FM.

How could they?Simple an Appelas Committee can overturn any decsion by an Arbiter other than a ruling under Article 10.2 or Article D.

What part of "The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter" don't you understand? Nothing about "determined by the appeals committee". If an arbiter's decision on 10.2 is explicitly stated to be final -- any reason to think any differently about 12.2?Yes the fact you have no clue what yopu are talking about.

Now, any sensible comments from anyone about how to achieve arbiterial consistency on this?Yes they should pay no attention to you.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:06 AM
My version of the Laws is the one that appeared as an insert in Australian Chess. I suspect the FIDE website version is indeed in error. :wall: :wall: :wall:

That's a worry, esp. with this comment on that version:


The English text is the authentic version of the Laws of Chess, which was adopted at the 75th FIDE Congress at Calvia (Mallorca), October 2004, coming into force on 1 July 2005.


Until then an arbiter could reasonably argue that if FIDE had meant to take away discretion then they could have done so by being explicit, therefore it should be assumed the arbiter does have some discretion. But the general convention of interpretation that seems to be developing around this rule is to use it in the same way as 6.10.

So it seems, even with Mr Gijssen. So FIDE should just say so.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:09 AM
Ok the English Chess Federation website lists the diefferences between the 2001 laws and the 2005 laws at http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/fide/changes-fide-laws_apr05.htm
There is a link on that page to the 2005 laws at http://www.bcf.org.uk/organisation/fide/laws-of-chess2005.doc

In that document Article 7.4b states: After the action taken under Article 7.4(a), for the first two illegal moves by a player the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his opponent in each instance; for a third illegal move by the same player, the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2007, 02:10 AM
If an arbiter's decision on 10.2 is explicitly stated to be final -- any reason to think any differently about 12.2?

Yes. 10.2 and the equivalent D1 are the only provisions in the Laws that have been appeal-proofed in this manner. Assuming any other supposedly analogous situation to be appeal-proofed would be an extremely bad idea given that the vast majority of cases are not appeal-proofed.

As for arbitrarial consistency, FIDE have wilfully made that difficult to acheive by being less willing to define situations precisely, so I wouldn't expect it until the next redraft (and probably not then either).

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:12 AM
Yes. 10.2 and the equivalent D1 are the only provisions in the Laws that have been appeal-proofed in this manner. Assuming any other supposedly analogous situation to be appeal-proofed would be an extremely bad idea given that the vast majority of cases are not appeal-proofed.Exactly.

Aaron Guthrie
11-04-2007, 02:12 AM
I'd say pedantry is a major plus, to say the least, when it comes to interpretation of written laws.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:22 AM
Another example of an error on the FIDE website regarding the Laws of Chess is Article 13.7b.

On the website it says It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue by the arbiter

Article 13.7b as passed by the Rules Commision was It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter

In fact Stewart Reuben remarks in the Third Edition of his Handbook that the wording should be It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any other part of the venue designated by the arbiter as the way it was worded by the Rules Commision allows the arbiter to ban mobile phones anywhere in the world.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:23 AM
I'd say pedantry is a major plus, to say the least, when it comes to interpretation of written laws.Unless you are also a creationist. ;)

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:26 AM
Actually the Laws of chess dont stipulate what a forfeit is.

So stop whinging about the term and get a life.


However unplayed games are considered forfeits and are not FIDE rated.

As such there is a difference between a forfeited (unplayed game) and a game declared lost for a player by the arbiter.

Here you are making an unwarranted contraction of the word's semantic field. Any sensible person would know I was using the term loosely to mean he was given a loss.


As I said your analogy is bogus. In fact the Chairman of the Rules cOmmision makes it clear how to apply 12.2b in as I quoted above.

Fine, then let the Laws say so. As it stands, Mr Gijssen deserves great respect, but it is still an opinion unless codified in the Laws. I'm barely old enough to remember when the Laws had a whole lot of official "Interpretations" bundled with them, which were multiplying like Ptolemaic epicycles. Then they decided to dispense with this nonsense and incorporate the interpretations into the laws.


Simple an Appelas Committe can overturn any decsion by an Arbiter other than a ruling under Article 10.2 or Article D.

What FIDE rule is this? BTW, I have been both an arbiter and a member of an appeals committee many times. An appeals committee should not interfere in cases like this where the decision is clearly up to the arbiter.


Yes the fact you have no clue what yopu are talking about.
Yes they should pay no attention to you.
Why on earth would any chessplayer pay any attention to a dilettante like you who lacks any achievements in chess?

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:30 AM
Unless you are also a creationist. ;)
Yet you would be the first to whinge if I brought the subject up in the chess forums, as opposed to the designated non-chess areas here, or said, "Your opening is rubbish as to be expected from an evolutionist" or some other such off-topic jibe.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:37 AM
Yes. 10.2 and the equivalent D1 are the only provisions in the Laws that have been appeal-proofed in this manner. Assuming any other supposedly analogous situation to be appeal-proofed would be an extremely bad idea given that the vast majority of cases are not appeal-proofed.

That's reasonable. But wouldn't there still have to be grounds for an appeal, such as an actual error by an arbiter, or new facts coming to light? If the decision of score is up to the arbiter, which it is according to the rules, then where is his error? E.g. how could it be wrong when his reason is: "Black's phone went off, but there is no way White was going to win that position by normal means, given that he had only a blocked pawn left, was a queen down and 15 minutes behing on time, so I award White 1/2." Don't like it? Then change the Laws to prohibit this sort of decision!


As for arbitrarial consistency, FIDE have wilfully made that difficult to acheive by being less willing to define situations precisely, so I wouldn't expect it until the next redraft (and probably not then either).

Craziness. Surely it can only be good for the game when the laws are applied consistently everywhere.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:41 AM
I'd say pedantry is a major plus, to say the least, when it comes to interpretation of written laws.
That's fair, but this pedantry was not about the written laws, but a loose comment about "forfeiting" someone when his mobile went off. I was asking about the score of his opponent, and along comes this patzer Gletsos thundering in off-topic about whether it was a loss or a forfeit. I mean, he could have done something useful and commented on how it would be rated if it were awarded 0-1/2 as I asked instead of picking a fight.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:50 AM
So stop whinging about the term and get a life.At least I'm not deluded like you.

Here you are making an unwarranted contraction of the word's semantic field. Any sensible person would know I was using the term loosely to mean he was given a loss.Any sensible person would know you have no clue regarding the Laws of Chess or FIDE regulations..

Fine, then let the Laws say so.They dont need to except for the totally clueless.

As it stands, Mr Gijssen deserves great respect, but it is still an opinion unless codified in the Laws.I believe that any competent arbiter would have no problem in having the same opinion as Geurt.

I'm barely old enough to remember when the Laws had a whole lot of official "Interpretations" bundled with them, which were multiplying like Ptolemaic epicycles.This isnt an accurate representation of the facts.

Then they decided to dispense with this nonsense and incorporate the interpretations into the laws.And neither is this.

What FIDE rule is this?Kevin already answered this in his post #23.

BTW, I have been both an arbiter and a member of an appeals committee many times. An appeals committee should not interfere in cases like this where the decision is clearly up to the arbiter.Rubbish, especially when the arbiter is misinterpreting the Laws of chess and applying Artciles that have no relevance.

Why on earth would any chessplayer pay any attention to a dilettante like you who lacks any achievements in chess?Because I know what I'm talking about and you clearly dont.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:53 AM
That's fair, but this pedantry was not about the written laws, but a loose comment about "forfeiting" someone when his mobile went off.It is indeed a shame that you still dont appreciate the difference bewteen the two and the impact on a players rating between a the two.

I was asking about the score of his opponent, and along comes this patzer Gletsos thundering in off-topic about whether it was a loss or a forfeit. I mean, he could have done something useful and commented on how it would be rated if it were awarded 0-1/2 as I asked instead of picking a fight.Surely even someone as clueless as you could work out how it would be rated.

It would be rated as a loss for the player whose mobile rang and rated as a draw for his opponent.

Now that wasnt too hard to work out now was it. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 02:54 AM
Yet you would be the first to whinge if I brought the subject up in the chess forums, as opposed to the designated non-chess areas here, or said, "Your opening is rubbish as to be expected from an evolutionist" or some other such off-topic jibe.I was suggesting that your flawed thinking on one subject was carrying over into another. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2007, 03:58 AM
That's reasonable. But wouldn't there still have to be grounds for an appeal, such as an actual error by an arbiter, or new facts coming to light?

The arbiter's decision being clearly unreasonable (even if consistent with the letter of the laws) is one common ground for successful appeal.

Example: suppose that White is losing on the board with only faint drawing chances when Black's mobile phone rings. The arbiter says "Well, the Laws say I decide the score of the opponent and White was losing anyway, so he gets zero". Any competent appeals committee would turf this rubbish immediately as it is blatantly unfair to White that his chances of drawing, slim as they were, have been removed through Black's wrongdoing; unless there is a proven collusion situation White must receive at least a draw. So the power of the arbiter to grant whatever score they like is not unlimited under such rules, even if they place no explicit restrictions.


If the decision of score is up to the arbiter, which it is according to the rules, then where is his error? E.g. how could it be wrong when his reason is: "Black's phone went off, but there is no way White was going to win that position by normal means, given that he had only a blocked pawn left, was a queen down and 15 minutes behing on time, so I award White 1/2." Don't like it? Then change the Laws to prohibit this sort of decision!

I have thought about this a little more and in both the three illegal move case and the mobile phone case I would apply the same standards as 6.10. The reason I would do this is that in each case the loss is entirely the loser's own doing and therefore the opponent should have the same set of rights in each case - to be granted a win if a win is mathematically possible, irrespective of previous moves. The collusion angle is irrelevant since unless collusion is proven then the player should not suffer on suspicion of possible collusion. To extend the rights present in 10.2 is a clearly incorrect analogy in my revised view as it grants extra protection to a player whose predicament was completely avoidable, whereas the purpose of 10.2 is to recognise that at guillotine time controls, sometimes a player will reach positions not otherwise lost in which flagfall legitimately can't be avoided.

That the preface refers to reaching the correct decision by studying analogous situations clearly indicates that a decision can be incorrect if the situation used to reach the decision is clearly not analogous.

I was initially sceptical of Bill's view that the appeals committee would have to throw the use of 10.2 as an analogy out, but I am now convinced, at least, that overturning the decision is a legitimate option for the committee.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2007, 07:10 AM
I was suggesting that your flawed thinking on one subject was carrying over into another. :hand:
You're asking for trouble on this Bill ... you initiated an unwarranted and quite unprovoked personal attack on Jono. Moderators have no business behaving in such a manner. Kevin at least had the good sense to stick on topic.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 09:54 AM
Because I know what I'm talking about and you clearly dont.

A lot of ipse dixits and abuse are just poor attempts to hide the fact that you're a chess duffer and blowhard.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 10:06 AM
The arbiter's decision being clearly unreasonable (even if consistent with the letter of the laws) is one common ground for successful appeal.

And here there would be a case under the Preface: "The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity."


Example: suppose that White is losing on the board with only faint drawing chances when Black's mobile phone rings. The arbiter says "Well, the Laws say I decide the score of the opponent and White was losing anyway, so he gets zero". Any competent appeals committee would turf this rubbish immediately as it is blatantly unfair to White that his chances of drawing, slim as they were, have been removed through Black's wrongdoing; unless there is a proven collusion situation White must receive at least a draw.

I would agree in this case. There seems no analogy, however slight, to other laws to give a struggling player 0.


So the power of the arbiter to grant whatever score they like is not unlimited under such rules, even if they place no explicit restrictions.

An arbiter's decision, where the laws give him this right, should be supported unless there is clear evidence of being unreasonable.


I have thought about this a little more and in both the three illegal move case and the mobile phone case I would apply the same standards as 6.10. The reason I would do this is that in each case the loss is entirely the loser's own doing and therefore the opponent should have the same set of rights in each case - to be granted a win if a win is mathematically possible, irrespective of previous moves. The collusion angle is irrelevant since unless collusion is proven then the player should not suffer on suspicion of possible collusion. To extend the rights present in 10.2 is a clearly incorrect analogy in my revised view as it grants extra protection to a player whose predicament was completely avoidable, whereas the purpose of 10.2 is to recognise that at guillotine time controls, sometimes a player will reach positions not otherwise lost in which flagfall legitimately can't be avoided.

10.2 also seems to be preventing players from winning where the position on the board clearly doesn't merit it, solely by exploiting what you call the 33rd piece. Should a win be granted solely because of a 34th piece that was purely the result of failure of the loser not the slightest merit of the winner?


I was initially sceptical of Bill's view that the appeals committee would have to throw the use of 10.2 as an analogy out, but I am now convinced, at least, that overturning the decision is a legitimate option for the committee.
Not convinced I would overturn such a decision were I on the committee. How hard would be for FIDE just to put something in the Laws here?

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 10:13 AM
It is indeed a shame that you still dont appreciate the difference bewteen the two and the impact on a players rating between a the two.

Surely anyone with an ounce of objectivity rather than a ton of (ir)religious bigotry would not read anything like that into a comment. I didn't need a patzer like you to tell me that what is normally called "loss by default" is not rated.


It would be rated as a loss for the player whose mobile rang and rated as a draw for his opponent.

Now that wasnt too hard to work out now was it. :hand:

I thought that would be the case, but wanted it in writing.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 10:17 AM
I was suggesting that your flawed thinking on one subject was carrying over into another. :hand:

By that "reasoning" (another ipse dixit included), your weakness as a chessplayer must surely carry over as weakness in discussions about the laws of chess. :P

Desmond
11-04-2007, 10:26 AM
Similar territory covered here: http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4558

Basil
11-04-2007, 10:41 AM
Would request that the personal insults cease.

Basil
11-04-2007, 10:41 AM
Would request that the personal insults cease. Is fully aware of the origins thereof.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 11:54 AM
For the record, from the thread Boris helpfully pointed out (sorry, I am fairly new here), Kevin Bonham in post #27 several times used the word "forfeit" to describe a loss when a mobile phone rang:

"If a player playing a game in progress made a phone call I would forfeit them"

"Player who answered the phone forfeits."

"If forfeiting the player in the first case, and when forfeiting them in the second case, the DOP can wait until the hour is up before deciding the score of the opponent."

"If the opponent makes it to the venue in time they are entitled to a win on forfeit."

Indeed, the title of the thread was "Who forfeits?" So why the third degree when I used the term "forfeit" in the same manner?

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:28 PM
Surely anyone with an ounce of objectivity rather than a ton of (ir)religious bigotry would not read anything like that into a comment. I didn't need a patzer like you to tell me that what is normally called "loss by default" is not rated.Well as you note immediately below you wanted someone to tell you how 0-0.5 would be rated so it is entirely reasonable that you needed to have it spelt out to you the situation regarding forfeiting and having the arbiter declare the game lost

I thought that would be the case, but wanted it in writing.I dont see why as it is totally obvious.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:33 PM
You're asking for trouble on this Bill ... you initiated an unwarranted and quite unprovoked personal attack on Jono. Moderators have no business behaving in such a manner. Kevin at least had the good sense to stick on topic.Actually if you look at my post #27 you will see I ended it with a ;).
Jono clearly ignored that in his response in post #29, hence I decided to reply in kind and Jono can clearly give as good as he gets.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:38 PM
A lot of ipse dixits and abuse are just poor attempts to hide the fact that you're a chess duffer and blowhard.I quoted the Chairman of the FIDE Rules Commitee with regards how to handle the score of the opponent when a player's phone rings.

I havent seen you be able to show the opinion of anyone of similar standing supporting your viewpoint. :hand:

ER
11-04-2007, 12:49 PM
It might be FIDE on the line with a ruling.

In which case they should call Bill and not the player! :)
Cheers and good luck!

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 12:49 PM
For the record, from the thread Boris helpfully pointed out (sorry, I am fairly new here), Kevin Bonham in post #27 several times used the word "forfeit" to describe a loss when a mobile phone rang:

"If a player playing a game in progress made a phone call I would forfeit them"

"Player who answered the phone forfeits."

"If forfeiting the player in the first case, and when forfeiting them in the second case, the DOP can wait until the hour is up before deciding the score of the opponent."

"If the opponent makes it to the venue in time they are entitled to a win on forfeit."

Indeed, the title of the thread was "Who forfeits?" So why the third degree when I used the term "forfeit" in the same manner?My post #2 in this thread where I said "Actually the player is not forfeited. The arbiter simply declares the game lost for him." was not the third degree at all, simply a statement.

You were the one who chose to argue there was no difference in subsequent posts beteen the terms when in fact the way they are treated for rating purposes is clearly different. Given you had asked how such a situation would be rated then accuracy in the wording is important.

In fact if you look closely at that thread that Boris referenced you should have noticed that even I had used the word forfeit.

That simply shows I was in error by being imprecise with my language.

ER
11-04-2007, 01:08 PM
proposes "ipsedixitism" "ipsedixitismation" "ipsedixitismally" and "ipsedixitise" as common forum terms!
Chees and good luck!

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 01:09 PM
I note over in post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=150238&postcount=77 where Kevin has said he would declare a double forfeit Jono disagrees with him and states he would declare a double loss.

From this Jono clearly believe there is a difference in the terms forfeit and loss otherwise surely he wouldnt have made the distinction. :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 01:32 PM
I note over in post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=150238&postcount=77 where Kevin has said he would declare a double forfeit Jono disagrees with him and states he would declare a double loss.

From this Jono clearly believe there is a difference in the terms forfeit and loss otherwise surely he wouldnt have made the distinction. :owned:

Or I was trying to avoid similar pedantry by using the word "loss".:wall:

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 01:35 PM
proposes "ipsedixitism" "ipsedixitismation" "ipsedixitismally" and "ipsedixitise" as common forum terms!
I can't see how something can be proposed as a common term. It is either common if it is used a lot, or it's not. They could be defined as having certain meanings in forum-speak ;)

ER
11-04-2007, 01:41 PM
I can't see how something can be proposed as a common term. It is either common if it is used a lot, or it's not. They could be defined as having certain meanings in forum-speak ;)

Thanks for the correction Jono! I should have been more careful with the wording of my proposal!
Cheers and good luck! :)

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:37 PM
10 HCDs. Nah, make it 20!
What does this mean? :confused:

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Actually if you look at my post #27 you will see I ended it with a ;).
Jono clearly ignored that in his response in post #29, hence I decided to reply in kind and Jono can clearly give as good as he gets.

Frosty could easily have used your post #7 which lacked a winkie.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Actually if you look at my post #27 you will see I ended it with a ;).
Jono clearly ignored that in his response in post #29, hence I decided to reply in kind and Jono can clearly give as good as he gets.
Maybe the HADBBA has gone to my head ... but I still think, smiley not withstanding, that the jibe was unseemly ... :uhoh:

If we were posting in another forum/sub-forum then perhaps I would have just ignored it, but I generally view the arbiting and ratings threads as where the serious discussion takes place.

If I were a mod, I'd have given you a yellow card for trolling, as evidenced by how rapidly the thread was derailed.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 02:45 PM
Thanks for the correction Jono! I should have been more careful with the wording of my proposal!
Cheers and good luck! :)

Have fun! :)

Basil
11-04-2007, 02:53 PM
What does this mean? :confused:
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4533

The highest ever paid was:

Shirty $151 HCDs
Matt Sweeney $150 HCDs

<eyes Frosty's last and backs out of thread, quietly>

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 03:33 PM
http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=4533

The highest ever paid was:

Shirty $151 HCDs
Matt Sweeney $150 HCDs

<eyes Frosty's last and backs out of thread, quietly>
Thanx Howard :cool:

Garrett
11-04-2007, 03:35 PM
as you can see, a HCD is a Howie Cyber Dollar.

When you get enough you can afford cyber with Howie.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2007, 03:43 PM
as you can see, a HCD is a Howie Cyber Dollar.

When you get enough you can afford cyber with Howie.
I am honoured by this Presidential award ;):cool:

Garvinator
11-04-2007, 03:54 PM
Actually the player is not forfeited. The arbiter simply declares the game lost for him.
Would this also affect colours for both players in future rounds? ie forfeited game means no colour for the forfeited round for both players. With the game 'just' declared lost- colours that both players were supposed to have played are recognised in future rounds.

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 04:02 PM
Would this also affect colours for both players in future rounds? ie forfeited game means no colour for the forfeited round for both players. With the game 'just' declared lost- colours that both players were supposed to have played are recognised in future rounds.F2. of the pairing rules states: F.2 Byes, and pairing not actually played, or lost by one of the players due to arriving late or not at all, will not be taken into account with respect to colour, Such a pairing is not considered to be illegal in future rounds.

As such in any situation other than those, the colour allocations stand and the players cannot be paired in a future round.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2007, 04:04 PM
<eyes Frosty's last and backs out of thread, quietly>
Cowardly Custard ... ;)

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 04:18 PM
Maybe the HADBBA has gone to my head ... but I still think, smiley not withstanding, that the jibe was unseemly ... :uhoh:

If we were posting in another forum/sub-forum then perhaps I would have just ignored it, but I generally view the arbiting and ratings threads as where the serious discussion takes place.Even then it depends on whether the poster has a clue what they are talking about.

If I were a mod, I'd have given you a yellow card for trolling, as evidenced by how rapidly the thread was derailed.I disagree as it is clear that I managed to still remain on topic in the majority of my posts.
All of my posts #2, #4, #9, #12, #13, #15, #17, #18, #22, #24, #26, #45 & #47 are totally on topic. I would argue that that majority of the content of my posts #7, #20, #33 & #49 are on topic.

My post #64 is also on topic with regards the question asked by Garvin.

They represent 18 of my 24 posts including this one.

Even parts of #32 & #51 are on topic.

Only #27, #34, #46 and now this one(#66) are off topic.

Basil
11-04-2007, 04:30 PM
Cowardly Custard ... ;)
Don't know if we're on the same page (actually we're not, the previous posts were on the previous page :eek:); but I was referring to


...but I generally view the arbiting and ratings threads as where the serious discussion takes place where I realised that my talk of HCDs was in fact doing the polluting of a thread which as you suggest should be pollutant-free.

But seeing as the whole thing had gone pear-shaped anyway, I don't feel quite as guilty as I otherwise should and would.

In reference to the serious discussion of de-railing, I'd agree that Bill started with his creationist comment (and I'm sure he would too), but then Jon followed in (reserves right to double-check and edit).

I was hoping that the two guys could manage something which I find inordinately difficult - to move on without returning serve :doh: [Boris seems to be an excellent practioner of such restraint; let's go see him for guidance!]

OK, everybody carry on!

EDIT: Yup - Jono definitely got he flavour of the thing as well ;)

EDIT: It seems we're the only ones running off-topic commentary now :doh: :uhoh:

Spiny Norman
11-04-2007, 04:57 PM
I disagree as it is clear that I managed to still remain on topic in the majority of my posts.
All of my posts #2, #4, #9, #12, #13, #15, #17, #18, #22, #24, #26, #45 & #47 are totally on topic. I would argue that that majority of the content of my posts #7, #20, #33 & #49 are on topic.
My post #64 is also on topic with regards the question asked by Garvin.
They represent 18 of my 24 posts including this one.
Even parts of #32 & #51 are on topic.
Only #27, #34, #46 and now this one(#66) are off topic.
Mods ... feel free to move this part of the discussion to a separate thread if you wish ...

Bill, are you suggesting that, because other posts of yours were 'on topic', that your post about Jono's creationist beliefs was similarly on topic?

Or do you mean that, because your other posts were on topic, your off-topic trolling post ought to be ignored (i.e. that on an overall percentage basis, you are on topic, therefore apparent trolling is actually not trolling at all because it is mitigated by the subsequent posts)?

At any rate, I was not particularly making comment about whether your posts were on- or off-topic, but rather that you provoked another poster with content that was both a personal attack AND off-topic (although smiley-mitigated the second time you raised it) ... and that the tone of the thread deteriorated when the target of your posts retaliated.

I'm curious why you would want to defend your position? Your post #7 had no such smiley when you first brought creationism into the discussion. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the relevance of that comment about creationism in post #7 ... perhaps explaining how it could reasonably be viewed as something other than an unprovoked personal attack?

Why can't issues be discussed and debated here on the merits of the arguments, without bringing in irrelevant personal jibes?

Bill Gletsos
11-04-2007, 07:03 PM
Mods ... feel free to move this part of the discussion to a separate thread if you wish ...

Bill, are you suggesting that, because other posts of yours were 'on topic', that your post about Jono's creationist beliefs was similarly on topic?I didnt say that, in fact I acknowledged in the post you just quoted that posts #27, #34, #46 were off topic.

Or do you mean that, because your other posts were on topic, your off-topic trolling post ought to be ignored (i.e. that on an overall percentage basis, you are on topic, therefore apparent trolling is actually not trolling at all because it is mitigated by the subsequent posts)?As far as I can see my jibe at him led him to demonstrate in subsequent posts that he also doesnt think highly of the opinions of those who are not "masters" etc.

At any rate, I was not particularly making comment about whether your posts were on- or off-topic, but rather that you provoked another poster with content that was both a personal attack AND off-topic (although smiley-mitigated the second time you raised it) ... and that the tone of the thread deteriorated when the target of your posts retaliated.

I'm curious why you would want to defend your position? Your post #7 had no such smiley when you first brought creationism into the discussion. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the relevance of that comment about creationism in post #7 ... perhaps explaining how it could reasonably be viewed as something other than an unprovoked personal attack?Simple. As far as I was concerned in the field of creationism he has credibility, however when it came to understanding the Laws of Chess he didnt.

Why can't issues be discussed and debated here on the merits of the arguments, without bringing in irrelevant personal jibes?Because I believed my comment in post #7 was highlighting he had no credibility on this subject as I just stated above.

Spiny Norman
11-04-2007, 07:18 PM
Thank you Bill ... matters now clarified (to my satisfaction at least, not that THAT particularly matters). Dare I add a smiley? :)

Basil
11-04-2007, 07:51 PM
Good work Bill
Good work Jono
Good work Frosty
Good work Brian
Good work Garvin
Good work George
Good work Howard

All we need now is for Bill Powell to drop by and take credit for the resolution and we can call it a wrap!

Look it's just a joke, OK? It is not made in good faith. There is no reasonable basis for it. It's just humour.

OK. Everybody carry on. Now where were we? Someone turned off a ratings officer in a mobile phone or something ...

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2007, 01:17 PM
As far as I can see my jibe at him led him to demonstrate in subsequent posts that he also doesnt think highly of the opinions of those who are not "masters" etc.

No, only non-masters who are rude to me on chess-related topics. I think my posts on chess strategy, openings etc. have been friendly and I hope helpful to non-masters.


Because I believed my comment in post #7 was highlighting he had no credibility on this subject as I just stated above.

I understand what the laws say; it's when they don't say something that there is a problem. FIDE should simply state explicitly that the arbiter should award a full point to the opponent unless he couldn't mate by any possible series of legal moves. At the moment, the laws as they are written do not compel the arbiter to do so; Kevin Bonham's eloquent reasoning and Mr Gijssen's statement are not legally binding.

There is no downside and a lot of upside to explicitly stating how the arbiter should rule. When it comes to formulating laws of chess, a little bit of (alleged) redundancy is a small price to pay to avoid a lot of unclarity.

Bill Gletsos
13-04-2007, 04:14 PM
No, only non-masters who are rude to me on chess-related topics. I think my posts on chess strategy, openings etc. have been friendly and I hope helpful to non-masters.:hand:

I understand what the laws say; it's when they don't say something that there is a problem.If you had understood what they said, you wouldnt have carried on about applying 10.2.

FIDE should simply state explicitly that the arbiter should award a full point to the opponent unless he couldn't mate by any possible series of legal moves. At the moment, the laws as they are written do not compel the arbiter to do so; Kevin Bonham's eloquent reasoning and Mr Gijssen's statement are not legally binding.As I said I havent seen you be able to show the opinion of anyone of similar standing to Geurt supporting your viewpoint.
Get back to me when you can.

There is no downside and a lot of upside to explicitly stating how the arbiter should rule. When it comes to formulating laws of chess, a little bit of (alleged) redundancy is a small price to pay to avoid a lot of unclarity.That is because there may be a circumstances that cannot be covered except by being extremely verbose which in most cases would be impractical. e.g. a Players phone rings but his opponent is not yet present at the venue and eventually arrives more than an hour late, or perhaps both players mobile phones ring within a short period of one another and the arbiter has not yet declared the game lost for one of the players.

It is for this reason the Preface to the Laws of chess state: The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game,

The Rules Commision of course expect arbiters not to go into contortions trying to apply Articles that have no bearing on the situation at hand. e.g. A Mobile phone ringing and then attempting to apply Article 10.2

The only relationship I could see between Article 10.2 and the mobile phone rule would be if after a player made a claim under 10.2 either his or his opponents mobile rang.
Then the situation could become complicated.

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2007, 06:47 PM
As I said I havent seen you be able to show the opinion of anyone of similar standing to Geurt supporting your viewpoint.

This is an argument from authority. What matters is what logically follows from the text of the Laws. Mr Gijssen is surely in a position to make sure that the text would require the actions he thinks are right.

After all, as the Laws currently stand, Kevin Bonham originally argued:



I would have no problem with an arbiter deciding to award a draw rather than a win in any of these cases:

* cannot possibly checkmate
* not trying to win OTB (except for making realistic attempts to win on the clock in a game with small increments)
* cannot win by normal means


So even though he has changed his mind, this shows that it is clearly not unreasonable to come to different conclusions from the actual text of the Laws than 6:10.


That is because there may be a circumstances that cannot be covered except by being extremely verbose which in most cases would be impractical.

But this is surely a circumstance that can be covered simply, by using the same wording as for 6.10.


The Rules Commision of course expect arbiters not to go into contortions trying to apply Articles that have no bearing on the situation at hand. e.g. A Mobile phone ringing and then attempting to apply Article 10.2.

Or rather, deciding that a person who could not realistically expect to win on the board and was not trying to should not be awarded a full point, as he would decide with 10.2.

There is no explicit reason to apply 6.10 either. And as Kevin Bonham originally said:


Until then an arbiter could reasonably argue that if FIDE had meant to take away discretion then they could have done so by being explicit, therefore it should be assumed the arbiter does have some discretion. But the general convention of interpretation that seems to be developing around this rule is to use it in the same way as 6.10.

I think the first sentence is really the point here, when it comes to what is logically required by the Laws, as opposed to what people think should apply.

Aaron Guthrie
13-04-2007, 11:21 PM
This is an argument from authority.Nothing inherently wrong with that. As far as appeals go this seems a pretty good one to me. Haven't you been appealing to your own authority when you appeal to the fact that you are a chess master. If that is a relevant appeal then surely this is too?


What matters is what logically follows from the text of the Laws.Bill has been arguing about what interpretation is correct on the basis of the text. The appeal just adds weight by showing that someone who is an expert in interpretation of the laws agrees with his interpretation.

I don't want to weigh into the technicalities of the debate over the rules, I am not an afficiando of the rules and my pedantic nature is best spent on other issues right now. I will add my interpretation, but it's just in case anyone's interested, rather than a firm claim by me.

It seems to me the most reasonable interpration is that of the flag fall analogy. It seems to me that 10.2 is an action, something someone has to be in the game to perform. It seems to me that the mobile phone ringing ends that persons participation in the game.

I can think of a couple of situations whereby a half point might be a reasonable decision, aside from the no possible way to mate situation. Firstly a case whereby it is usual that the games are adjudicated at a certain point. This is still arguable of course. Secondly a case whereby someone had made a 10.2 claim, and had been sent back to the board while the arbiter has reserved his decision. If a flag fall resulted in a half point, then it would seem reasonable that a mobile phone ring might result in a half point. This is still an analogy to the flag fall situation of course.

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2007, 01:14 AM
This is an argument from authority.Yes and you have provided nothing from any authority to support your view.

What matters is what logically follows from the text of the Laws. Mr Gijssen is surely in a position to make sure that the text would require the actions he thinks are right.Not at all because unlike 6.10 you could have the situation I described above. Hence the arbiters discretion. That discretion however doesnt extend to applying Articles that have no relevance such as 10.2.

After all, as the Laws currently stand, Kevin Bonham originally argued:

So even though he has changed his mind, this shows that it is clearly not unreasonable to come to different conclusions from the actual text of the Laws than 6:10.No it doesnt because if his original conclusion was valid he would have had no need to change it.

But this is surely a circumstance that can be covered simply, by using the same wording as for 6.10.Incorrect as my example in my previous post clearly demonstrates.

Or rather, deciding that a person who could not realistically expect to win on the board and was not trying to should not be awarded a full point, as he would decide with 10.2.You can keep sprouting that view but you have provided no evidence that anyone in authority supports it.

There is no explicit reason to apply 6.10 either.Only that it clearly logigal to do so.

And as Kevin Bonham originally said:

I think the first sentence is really the point here, when it comes to what is logically required by the Laws, as opposed to what people think should apply.No because they cannot cover every circumstance. The Rules Commision however do not expect arbiters to mis-apply Articles like you are trying to do with 10.2.

Kerry Stead
14-04-2007, 01:11 PM
How about one of the 'authorities' gives a summary of the alternatives available to an arbiter in the situations discussed and we leave the topic be (until an 'analogous' situation arises in a tournament :whistle: [smiley used intentionally]) ...

Bill Gletsos
14-04-2007, 01:35 PM
How about one of the 'authorities' gives a summary of the alternatives available to an arbiter in the situations discussed and we leave the topic be (until an 'analogous' situation arises in a tournament :whistle: [smiley used intentionally]) ...I think the situation has already been made clear.

In the usual normal situation where a players phone rings he loses the game and his opponent is awarded a win, unless his opponent cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay in which case he is only awarded a draw.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2007, 01:52 PM
Nothing inherently wrong with that. As far as appeals go this seems a pretty good one to me. Haven't you been appealing to your own authority when you appeal to the fact that you are a chess master. If that is a relevant appeal then surely this is too?

Only in reply to someone who dismissed me airily.


Bill has been arguing about what interpretation is correct on the basis of the text.

Not in the sense of what must logically follow from the wording. Rather, there is an attempt to explain away why the current laws are not explicit, which inadvertently supports my original point.


The appeal just adds weight by showing that someone who is an expert in interpretation of the laws agrees with his interpretation.

What someone thinks is a good idea is very different from what logically follows from the actual text of the laws.


It seems to me the most reasonable interpration is that of the flag fall analogy.

OK, that's reasonable, but this analogy is not demanded by the text of the laws. There seem to be some voices that want to make the Laws into something akin to Euclid's geometry, minimizing the number of axioms needed. But as I said, a little redundancy is a small price to pay for a lot of clarity. There would be little to lose in clarifying what an arbiter should do in what would be by far the commonest situation: a mobile goes off during a normal game.

Phil Bourke
15-04-2007, 09:49 AM
I was actually involved in a mobile phone incident at the recent Doeberl Cup. I had finished my game, went outside, switched the phone on to check if anyone had rang etc, then got involved in conversation and forgot to switch it back off before entering the playing hall. As I entered the hall, the phone rang, I was only just in the hall and left to answer the damn thing. Assistant DOP approached me and informed me that it was an automatic loss of my game. I informed him that I had finished my game, and believed that by being finished, I was just a spectator for the remainder of that round. He correctly deferred the decision to the chief DOP and I was given a warning and we went on as per normal.
It was an interesting and ticklish situation, because it had been announced that spectators who had their mobile ring would be banned/suspended from the venue for the rest of that day, and as we had another round to play that day I was a little concerned about being in that position.

Aaron Guthrie
15-04-2007, 11:21 AM
It was an interesting and ticklish situation, because it had been announced that spectators who had their mobile ring would be banned/suspended from the venue for the rest of that day, and as we had another round to play that day I was a little concerned about being in that position.Maybe you could be suspended from the venue in your capacity as a spectator. Of course you would have to bolt for the door after your game ends :)

Desmond
15-04-2007, 11:52 AM
As I entered the hall, the phone rang, I was only just in the hall and left to answer the damn thing. Assistant DOP approached me and informed me that it was an automatic loss of my game. I informed him that I had finished my game, and believed that by being finished, I was just a spectator for the remainder of that round. He correctly deferred the decision to the chief DOP and I was given a warning and we went on as per normal.I'm suprised you didn't get docked a point from your score. I think you got off lightly.

CameronD
15-04-2007, 12:31 PM
Very lucky... a lot of DOP would have suspended you for the rest of the day meaning a forfeit occuring or voluntary bye ... but not remove points.

Basil
15-04-2007, 02:37 PM
Brisbane Chess Club had a forfeit on the rule last Thursday - by the by. Cut and dried. Sitting at table, playing. Ring. Gone!

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 02:38 PM
I'm suprised you didn't get docked a point from your score. I think you got off lightly.No, once his game ended his is no longer a player, just a spectator and as such the the original result of his game stands.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Very lucky... a lot of DOP would have suspended you for the rest of the day meaning a forfeit occuring or voluntary bye ... but not remove points.Actually I doubt any IA would do that. They would simply inform him that he was suspended from the venue except whilst he was actually playing.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2007, 02:48 PM
I'm suprised you didn't get docked a point from your score. I think you got off lightly.
I think so too. The arbiter was entitled to do this, and it seems that the point of the law was a deterrent to mobile phones going off in the playing area.

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

... reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,

Basil
15-04-2007, 02:49 PM
If I may Boris and Jono. While you guys are entitled to be as surprised as you wish :), Bill is correct.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 03:02 PM
I think so too. The arbiter was entitled to do this, and it seems that the point of the law was a deterrent to mobile phones going off in the playing area.

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

... reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,Incorrect. The players game has already ended. Hence when his phone rang he was no longer a player, he was a spectator.
In fact I am fairly certain that Geurt mentions this scenario in one of his notebooks but I cannot be bothered wasting my time looking it up.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 03:05 PM
BTW when I was at the SIO I discussed the situation in this thread with an IA who has extensive experience arbitering overseas and their opinion matched mine. i.e. If a players phone rings he loses the game and his opponent is will receive the full point unless they cannot checkmate the player`s king by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled counterplay in which case the opponent is only awarded a draw. When I asked them if they would consider applying Article 10.2 the answer was a definite no.

Desmond
15-04-2007, 03:20 PM
No, once his game ended his is no longer a player, just a spectator and as such the the original result of his game stands.My reasoning is as follows:
The status quo penalty for a mobile ringing is a loss. Spectators, however, have nothing to lose, as it were, so a different penalty is applicable to them. If they had points to lose, then the satus quo penalty would be applied to them.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 03:38 PM
My reasoning is as follows:
The status quo penalty for a mobile ringing is a loss. Spectators, however, have nothing to lose, as it were, so a different penalty is applicable to them. If they had points to lose, then the satus quo penalty would be applied to them.That may well be your reasoning but it is not correct.
Once a players game has ended they are a spectator as stated in Article 12.4 of the Laws of Chess and are treated as such. e.g. any right a player has to be in a cordoned off playing area lapses once their game ends. I saw this enforced first hand at the FIDE World Championship knockout in Las Vegas in 1999.

Article 12.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators.

Rincewind
15-04-2007, 03:47 PM
That may well be your reasoning but it is not correct.
Once a players game has ended they are a spectator as stated in Article 12.4 of the Laws of Chess and are treated as such. e.g. any right a player has to be in a cordoned off playing area lapses once their game ends. I saw this enforced first hand at the FIDE World Championship knockout in Las Vegas in 1999.

Article 12.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators.

I agree, Bill, and 12.4 is key to the aside I pointed out in post #10.

Basil
15-04-2007, 04:03 PM
... but I cannot be bothered wasting my time looking it up.

Bill, I'm not sure why you would say this. We are all richer for your experience, so your input is much appreciated. And if you didn't have the time (or didn't wish to make it) to look it up, that would be fine, too. But to be not 'bothered wasting your time' seems a little OTT, n'est-ce pas?

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 04:09 PM
Bill, I'm not sure why you would say this. We are all richer for your experience, so your input is much appreciated. And if you didn't have the time (or didn't wish to make it) to look it up, that would be fine, too. But to be not 'bothered wasting your time' seems a little OTT, n'est-ce pas?Because in this case I do indeed see it as a waste of my time. I say this because it is clear from the Laws of Chess that a player who has finished his game is no longer a player but a spectator. It is that simple.

Basil
15-04-2007, 04:16 PM
Because in this case I do indeed see it as a waste of my time. I say this because it is clear from the Laws of Chess that a player who has finished his game is no longer a player but a spectator. It is that simple.
Damn. I wanted a scrap! (OK I didn't) But that seems fair enough to me.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2007, 05:28 PM
13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:

... reducing the points scored in a game by the offending party,


Incorrect. The players game has already ended. Hence when his phone rang he was no longer a player, he was a spectator.

Indeed he was. But that law gives the arbiter the right to reduce a tournament participant score in a game, and nothing was said about when the game was finished. E.g. if a game has been finished and one player was found to have cheated, an arbiter can deduct his score for bringing the game into disrepute.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 05:31 PM
Indeed he was. But that law gives the arbiter the right to reduce a tournament participant score in a game, and nothing was said about when the game was finished. E.g. if a game has been finished and one player was found to have cheated, an arbiter can deduct his score for bringing the game into disrepute.Yes but so what as that is totally irrelevant with regards a ringing phone for a spectator, even if that spectator was at some stage a player.

Garvinator
15-04-2007, 07:14 PM
Jono,

From what I have read here, the correct ruling situation is as follows:

Person finishes their game, scoresheets are signed and results reported. At this stage, the former players become spectators.

Then if the mobile phone goes off, the arbiter(s) are to treat the offending person as a spectator.


12.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators

13.7 1. Spectators and players in other games are not to speak about or otherwise interfere in a game. If necessary, the arbiter may expel offenders from the playing venue.
2. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue by the arbiter (from fide website) my addition: if the fide website was completely accurate, it should say: It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue not authorised by the arbiter

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 07:27 PM
2. It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue by the arbiter (from fide website) my addition: if the fide website was completely accurate, it should say: It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue not authorised by the arbiterAs I noted previously in post #26 the actual Article 13.7b is It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter

The wording as shown on the FIDE website is simply wrong.

Basil
15-04-2007, 07:30 PM
The wording as shown on the FIDE website is simply wrong.

If you are correct, the FIDE ratings make 2 published errors. I wonder what they'll manage for the trifecta.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 07:36 PM
If you are correct,I am correct. :hand: ;)

FIDE have simply left out some words. :doh: :doh:

Phil Bourke
15-04-2007, 09:39 PM
Would anyone be interested in the Doeberl DOP's take on the whole event?
My game was finished. I could only be classed as a spectator. They could have banished me from the viewing areas, ie the venue, for the day as they had announced earlier in their warnings. But as this applied to spectators and I was a player in the event, any such banning would have only been until the end of the current round. Seeing as it was an accidental oversight, I was cautioned to be more careful in future and everyone was happy.
Wish everyone had the same commonsense that was shown by the DOP's involved in this incident.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 09:46 PM
Would anyone be interested in the Doeberl DOP's take on the whole event?
My game was finished. I could only be classed as a spectator. They could have banished me from the viewing areas, ie the venue, for the day as they had announced earlier in their warnings. But as this applied to spectators and I was a player in the event, any such banning would have only been until the end of the current round. Seeing as it was an accidental oversight, I was cautioned to be more careful in future and everyone was happy.
Wish everyone had the same commonsense that was shown by the DOP's involved in this incident.I dont believe anything I have said contradicts the actions taken by the Doeberl arbiter. in fact for the record I agree with his decision.

Denis_Jessop
15-04-2007, 09:59 PM
Since this has been such an interesting discussion, I could not resist making some educatuional, though strictly irrelevant, observations. :eek:

Articles 12.2.2.b and 13.7.b both apply to players, though the latter also applies to spectators. Art.12.2.b forbids the bringing of a mobile phone etc into the playing venue and provides a penalty if that phone rings. Art. 13.7.b forbids the use by "anybody" of a mobile phone in the playing venue and it is arguable that there is no penalty for breach of that provision (contrast 13.7.a). Thus the two provisions are directed at different circumstances.

There are a few problems (better described as deficiencies) with these provisions. First, both apply to the "playing venue" when they should apply only to the "playing area". As they now stand, a player loses if his mobile phone rings in the rest room or the refreshment or smoking area and nobody is allowed to use a mobile phone in those areas, which is absurd . Secondly, there is no penalty if a spectator's mobile phone rings unless that is taken to be "use" of the phone, which, in my view, it isn't. Thirdly, the lack of a penalty for breach of 13.7.b makes no good sense.

DJ

Phil Bourke
15-04-2007, 11:13 PM
I dont believe anything I have said contradicts the actions taken by the Doeberl arbiter.
Never said that you had ;) My wish was that everyone showed the same commonsense as the DOP's involved ;)
I cannot believe that anyone would think that there was a need to go back and alter a game result that was already submitted in this instance, for an act that had no bearing on that game.

Aaron Guthrie
15-04-2007, 11:20 PM
My game was finished. I could only be classed as a spectator. They could have banished me from the viewing areas, ie the venue, for the day as they had announced earlier in their warnings. But as this applied to spectators and I was a player in the event, any such banning would have only been until the end of the current round.But you would re-become a spectator after your next game finished. So it seems reasonable to me that the ban would come back into effect after your next game finishes.

Bill Gletsos
15-04-2007, 11:48 PM
Never said that you had ;)I hadnt thought so but decided I would make the point. ;)

My wish was that everyone showed the same commonsense as the DOP's involved ;)Unfortunately that isnt always the case.

I cannot believe that anyone would think that there was a need to go back and alter a game result that was already submitted in this instance, for an act that had no bearing on that game.True.

Desmond
16-04-2007, 10:48 AM
Never said that you had ;) My wish was that everyone showed the same commonsense as the DOP's involved ;)
I cannot believe that anyone would think that there was a need to go back and alter a game result that was already submitted in this instance, for an act that had no bearing on that game.I wonder if your sentiments were shared by the entire playing hall that no doubt was disturbed, and whether their disturbance was in any way reduced by the fact that you had finished your game.

CameronD
16-04-2007, 11:14 AM
The player should have been banned from the playing hall for the rest of the day and have 0 point byes for the rest of the day. If arbiters started doing this then players would make certain that their phones were off.

There is a blantant disrespect in chess with regard to the playing hall. The playing of friendly chess and talking (inc whispering) in the hall needs to be banned and enforced as it generates all the noise. I was in a recent tournament and the noise coming from friendly games was out of control and only 3m away from rated tournament games, then there's talking which becomes acceptable :mad: when only a few boards are left. I was watching an IM game with less than 20sec on each players clock with immence noise in the room.

Arbiters need to start kicking people out till the next round with no warnings to break this practice and create a proper chess environment. The problem with the phone and other noise is that they have no respect for anyone else. The playing hall needs to be treated as a sacred space.

Garvinator
16-04-2007, 11:31 AM
The player should have been banned from the playing hall for the rest of the day and have 0 point byes for the rest of the day. If arbiters started doing this then players would make certain that their phones were off. With two or more rounds in the day, the 'correct' action is to remove them for the rest of the session, instead of the whole day. Removing the player from the other rounds in the day may give the undesirable effect of someone else missing out on a game because of the bye.


There is a blantant disrespect in chess with regard to the playing hall. The playing of friendly chess and talking (inc whispering) in the hall needs to be banned and enforced as it generates all the noise. I was in a recent tournament and the noise coming from friendly games was out of control and only 3m away from rated tournament games, then there's talking which becomes acceptable :mad: when only a few boards are left. I was watching an IM game with less than 20sec on each players clock with immence noise in the room.

Arbiters need to start kicking people out till the next round with no warnings to break this practice and create a proper chess environment. The problem with the phone and other noise is that they have no respect for anyone else. The playing hall needs to be treated as a sacred space.

Was this at the March Madness tournament? If it wasnt, then disregard most of the reply below as I can't answer for another arbiter :uhoh:

If so, then the problem mainly is that there is not a decent, separate analysis area. If there was, then the arbiter would be easily able to send players wishing to play social games and analysis to the separate room.

Also, at the venue for the March Madness tournament, there is no 'play' area for juniors to use after their games. This means the arbiter cannot easily kick the juniors out of the tournament hall after their games have finished as they have nowhere else to 'go play'. The adults don't have a shopping centre or something similar to amuse themselves as well.

Also, players do need to start complaining about these issues ie too much noise in the tournament hall, during their games and during the tournament. Otherwise, it is very easy for an arbiter to just say 'well the players arent complaining, so I dont have to do anything'. I have heard this line of reasoning way too often.

Therefore, the players who are still playing in the round do bare some responsibility as well for not complaining if they are being distracted by the general conditions in the hall.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2007, 11:32 AM
Jono,

From what I have read here, the correct ruling situation is as follows:

Person finishes their game, scoresheets are signed and results reported. At this stage, the former players become spectators.

Then if the mobile phone goes off, the arbiter(s) are to treat the offending person as a spectator.

Garvin, thanx for your reasoned discussion, as usual.

I was not disputing that the this person had become a spectator, so could not be punished under a rule that applied to players. But there is precedent for punishing tournament participants for actions committed as spectators. E.g. if a player punched his opponent after losing, the game is over, so he is a spectator, but should be thrown out of the tournament at the very least. Or if a participant whose game is over gave advice or pointed out a flag fall, there are sanctions the arbiter can impose on him.

So if a mobile phone is considered disturbing enough that it merits an automatic loss for a player, there is every reason to think that it merits a penalty when committed by a tournament participant who has become a spectator. And as I said, an arbiter may penalize by reducing a player's score for a game.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2007, 11:34 AM
I wonder if your sentiments were shared by the entire playing hall that no doubt was disturbed, and whether their disturbance was in any way reduced by the fact that you had finished your game.
Yes, that seems to be the real issue. So since the harsh penalty seems to be designed as a deterrent, what is the point if tournament participants merely need to wait till their games are over before allowing this disturbance.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2007, 11:35 AM
I am correct. :hand: ;)

FIDE have simply left out some words. :doh: :doh:
What is an arbiter to do, when FIDE's explicitly stated authentic version of the Laws on their own website is mistaken?

Aaron Guthrie
16-04-2007, 11:37 AM
Does anyone else think you can ban the person, for the whole day, in their capacity as a spectator but still allow them to play their games for the rest of the day?

Garvinator
16-04-2007, 11:53 AM
What is an arbiter to do, when FIDE's explicitly stated authentic version of the Laws on their own website is mistaken?
Many things about fide are mistaken ;).

The wording in this section of the laws makes no sense and I think this is obvious.

Bill has supplied the correct wording.




As I noted previously in post #26 the actual Article 13.7b is It is forbidden for anybody to use a mobile phone in the playing venue and any area designated by the arbiter

The wording as shown on the FIDE website is simply wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2007, 12:15 PM
Many things about fide are mistaken ;).

The wording in this section of the laws makes no sense and I think this is obvious.

There is something very wrong then. The explicitly stated version is the one on the FIDE site.

This is not the only thing wrong. As I pointed out elsewhere, the Laws imply that in the case of simultaneous resignation, both players should win.

CameronD
16-04-2007, 06:56 PM
Was this at the March Madness tournament? If it wasnt, then disregard most of the reply below as I can't answer for another arbiter :uhoh:

I'm actually referring to all tournaments I've played in except for a tournament at Redcliffe (rather than just the March Madness). I'm more hoping for no friendly games at the playing area, it would solve 70% of the problem. I'm not blaming the arbiter :cool: , I'm would more like to see a national push from the ACF through their player communication and inform the arbiter on this issue.

ps- players may not be able to complain due to time concerns (takes time to find and make a complaint) and it gets to a point where no one would listen to the arbiter anyway if they tried to get control (ie March madness when Garvin tried shutting everyone up... it lasted 30sec - not Garvins fault!!!!!!!!!)

Kevin Bonham
16-04-2007, 07:13 PM
10.2 also seems to be preventing players from winning where the position on the board clearly doesn't merit it, solely by exploiting what you call the 33rd piece. Should a win be granted solely because of a 34th piece that was purely the result of failure of the loser not the slightest merit of the winner?

Wins can occur in other similar cases - for instance, suppose the opponent is suddenly taken ill during a game and hence, with no alternative arrangement possible, loses on time in an otherwise winning position with no time pressure. Here a win can arise even though not only did the winner do nothing to deserve that result, but it wasn't the loser's fault either!


Not convinced I would overturn such a decision were I on the committee.

With the benefit of this thread I now reckon I would overturn it, but had it been presented to me before this thread I would not have.


So even though he has changed his mind, this shows that it is clearly not unreasonable to come to different conclusions from the actual text of the Laws than 6:10.

My original view was probably a reasonable first reaction but I am now convinced it was wrong. Something that an appeals committee are satisfied is clearly wrong should be overturned even if they think it was a reasonable error to make.

Re the Phil Bourke situation I agree with Mangafranga. The player was a spectator at the time of the offence. The most consistent implementation of the proclamation made by the organisers is that the player is barred from spectating for the rest of the day. The situation is somewhat odd and the organisers' handling of it is also fair enough although a little soft in terms of the law they were laying down. Punitive action against the player as a player seems incorrect unless there was a deliberate distraction element, which there was not.


How hard would be for FIDE just to put something in the Laws here?

We'll find out at the next review. :)

(And yes, my use of "forfeit" when I should more precisely have said "default" was sloppy.)

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2007, 07:17 PM
The player should have been banned from the playing hall for the rest of the day and have 0 point byes for the rest of the day.No, at the worst the player should have been banned only for the session. The decision by the experienced arbiters at the Doeberl was the correct one.

Bill Gletsos
16-04-2007, 07:20 PM
What is an arbiter to do, when FIDE's explicitly stated authentic version of the Laws on their own website is mistaken?Make sure they have other versions of the Laws to cross-check against as typographical errors etc on a web page are always a possibility.

Desmond
16-04-2007, 07:21 PM
Make sure they have other versions of the Laws to cross-check against as typographical errors etc on a web page are always a possibility.Heaven forbid FIDE should proofread their own website themselves.

Garvinator
16-04-2007, 07:34 PM
Was this at the March Madness tournament? If it wasnt, then disregard most of the reply below as I can't answer for another arbiter :uhoh: I made the comment above and have straightened out your quoting to reflect this. If I have quoted incorrectly, please correct my mistake.


I'm actually referring to all tournaments I've played in except for a tournament at Redcliffe (rather than just the March Madness). I'm more hoping for no friendly games at the playing area, it would solve 70% of the problem.

Funny you mention Redcliffe. In my opinion they are one of the worst offenders in my experience of weekenders. The Redcliffe tournaments have options for where to put the analysis section (if the tournament has an analysis section at all.) I have made my opinion on this matter very clear to the organisers (at least Mark Stokes is very well aware of my opinion).
The analysis tables can be put outside and a simple, consistently enforced message of all analysis of games to be done outside, will solve a lot of the problems.


I'm not blaming the arbiter :cool: , I'm would more like to see a national push from the ACF through their player communication and inform the arbiter on this issue.
Ahh, another person who expects the acf 'to do something' on an issue.


ps- players may not be able to complain due to time concerns (takes time to find and make a complaint)
Players most certainly have time to complain. They can stop the clock and call for the arbiter. Then they have 'all the time in the world' so to speak.


It gets to a point where no one would listen to the arbiter anyway if they tried to get control (ie March madness when Garvin tried shutting everyone up... it lasted 30sec - not Garvins fault!!!!!!!!!)

At the March madness tournament (for instance), if there was a completely separate analysis section and noise from there didn't blare into the playing area, I would certainly have been able to take more sterner action in keeping the playing area quiet.

I have already made this point and similar ones in previous post.

Basil
16-04-2007, 07:38 PM
In my opinion they are one of the worst offenders
All hippy, wishy-washy, free-spirit, non-enforcers are slowly getting the message, Garvinator. Even Pat unhesitatingly enforced the mobile phone expulsion at The BCC last week :clap:

Years of non-confrontation and lack of gumption in enforcing rules are vanishing as a culture as we speak.

All credit to:
moi,
toi &
Le Gletsos

Flip-flops of the world be-gone!

Garvinator
16-04-2007, 07:44 PM
All hippy, wishy-washy, free-spirit, non-enforcers are slowly getting the message, Garvinator. Even Pat unhesitatingly enforced the mobile phone expulsion at The BCC last week :clap:
When I saw the results from BCC last week including the mobile phone loss, I almost fell off my chair ;).

The week that I am away, there is a mobile phone incident and Pat applies the rule correctly :clap:

Garvinator
16-04-2007, 07:45 PM
toiWho is toi?

Rincewind
16-04-2007, 07:52 PM
Who is toi?

That would be you.

CameronD
16-04-2007, 10:06 PM
..

Desmond
16-04-2007, 10:09 PM
If players do not complain to the arbiter in the first instance and then to their state body / ACF, why should anyone think that there is a problem?

CameronD
16-04-2007, 10:19 PM
..

Denis_Jessop
16-04-2007, 10:45 PM
I'm actually referring to all tournaments I've played in except for a tournament at Redcliffe (rather than just the March Madness). I'm more hoping for no friendly games at the playing area, it would solve 70% of the problem. I'm not blaming the arbiter , I'm would more like to see a national push from the ACF through their player communication and inform the arbiter on this issue.

If you are complaining that the Laws of Chess are not being strictly observed in a particular event, you must blame the Arbiter, for it is the Arbiter's duty to see that they are (Art.13.1). There is nothing that the ACF or a State Association can do about this but to exhort arbiters to enforce the laws which is a pretty pointless excercise. Any half competent arbiter knows it already.

DJ

Phil Bourke
17-04-2007, 09:12 AM
I wonder if your sentiments were shared by the entire playing hall that no doubt was disturbed, and whether their disturbance was in any way reduced by the fact that you had finished your game.
To save me explaining the whole situation to you and those that still think I was leniently dealt with again, please refer to http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/
I was willing to accept any ban on myself as a spectator, but was prepared to fight against any action on myself as a player. Please excuse my abruptness, but other events of this week have once again highlighted that there are more important things in life than chess, and I suggest that anyone here wanting to get there knickers in a twist over rules and their applications take a visit to Westmead Children's Hospital and tell the parents and children there what rules they broke to be where they are.
For crying out loud, remember, "Wise men are guided by rules, fools are bound by them."

Desmond
17-04-2007, 10:00 AM
To save me explaining the whole situation to you and those that still think I was leniently dealt with again, please refer to http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/Isn't this essentially the same scenario as already described?


I was willing to accept any ban on myself as a spectator, but was prepared to fight against any action on myself as a player. Please excuse my abruptness, but other events of this week have once again highlighted that there are more important things in life than chess, and I suggest that anyone here wanting to get there knickers in a twist over rules and their applications take a visit to Westmead Children's Hospital and tell the parents and children there what rules they broke to be where they are.
For crying out loud, remember, "Wise men are guided by rules, fools are bound by them."Following this logic, there are more important things in life than a point in a chess tournament, so you wouldn't mind if you were docked one.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 12:30 PM
:hand: Following this logic, there are more important things in life than a point in a chess tournament, so you wouldn't mind if you were docked one.

Touché: an excellent reductio ad absurdum.:hand:

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 04:12 PM
Isn't this essentially the same scenario as already described?

Following this logic, there are more important things in life than a point in a chess tournament, so you wouldn't mind if you were docked one.Other than the fact that spectators are not penalised points, since they are spectators not players.

Desmond
17-04-2007, 04:41 PM
Other than the fact that spectators are not penalised points, since they are spectators not players.And there, in the second half of that sentence, lies the problem. You are correct that at that moment he is a spectator, but can is really be said that he is not a player?

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 04:53 PM
And there, in the second half of that sentence, lies the problem. You are correct that at that moment he is a spectator, but can is really be said that he is not a player?Yes.
The Laws of chess make it quite clear that he is no longer considered a player but a spectator once his game had ended.

ElevatorEscapee
17-04-2007, 05:21 PM
I wonder if this could be used to help boost crowd numbers in tournament reports? "Round 1 was a great success attracting 100 players, and when all the games were finished at least as many spectators had shown up to watch the action..." ;)

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 05:39 PM
And there, in the second half of that sentence, lies the problem. You are correct that at that moment he is a spectator, but can is really be said that he is not a player?

Or that he is no longer a tournament participant? Otherwise a such a participant could get away with a lot once he's finished his game.

Desmond
17-04-2007, 06:50 PM
Yes.
The Laws of chess make it quite clear that he is no longer considered a player but a spectator once his game had ended.So, he is standing in the tournament hall in the tournament in which he is playing, but he is most certainly not a player.

"12.4 Players who have finished their games shall be considered to be spectators. "

It does not say that they cease being players in the tournament. In fact, the wording implies (with the word "considered") that they are still players. As such, your statement that "they are spectators not players" is incorrect.

Phil Bourke
17-04-2007, 06:57 PM
Isn't this essentially the same scenario as already described?
Following this logic, there are more important things in life than a point in a chess tournament, so you wouldn't mind if you were docked one.

Touché: an excellent reductio ad absurdum.
So, what is your excuse for arguing about a point that wasn't even yours to start with?
Talk about arguing for argument's sake. Give it a rest. It happened, it was ruled on, it is done and dusted.

Bill Gletsos
17-04-2007, 06:59 PM
Talk about arguing for argument's sake. Give it a rest. It happened, it was ruled on, it is done and dusted.The Doeberl Cup arbiter clearly made the correct decision.

Anyone arguing otherwise clearly doesnt know what they are talking about.

Desmond
17-04-2007, 07:01 PM
So, what is your excuse for arguing about a point that wasn't even yours to start with?
Talk about arguing for argument's sake. Give it a rest. It happened, it was ruled on, it is done and dusted.Don't worry, I'm not seeking to see you stripped of your precious point. I am however curious as to how you justify to yourself that you disturbed the rest of your tournament playing peers any less because your game had finished.

Phil Bourke
17-04-2007, 07:41 PM
Don't worry, I'm not seeking to see you stripped of your precious point.
You seem to express a contrary opinion in post #82

I am however curious as to how you justify to yourself that you disturbed the rest of your tournament playing peers any less because your game had finished.
Never even tried to justify the incident or myself, I just apologised for my mistake, clarified if I was to be dealt with as a player or a spectator and left it to the arbiter's to interpret and decide upon.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 08:22 PM
Never even tried to justify the incident or myself, I just apologised for my mistake, clarified if I was to be dealt with as a player or a spectator and left it to the arbiter's to interpret and decide upon.

Well, maybe the Law about automatic forfeit, I mean loss, is too harsh and should be rescinded?

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2007, 08:28 PM
Well, maybe the Law about automatic forfeit, I mean loss, is too harsh and should be rescinded?

I don't see why. If it's rescinded then penalties will become subjective - some arbiters will default (hope I've got it right now!) the offender while some will only issue warnings. It's a good thing to have uniformity on so that it is clearly understood that mobile phone use during a game is out.

In the discussion about whether Phil was a player or spectator some posters are not realising that there is a reason why the rule is harsher while a person is playing their game. This is that under such circumstances phone use is not merely a distraction but is also a cheating opportunity. It is the latter that has caused such a harsh penalty in the hope of completely stamping out mobile phone use by players.

We haven't had our first mobile phone default in Tassie yet. I'm rather dreading it; if I'm lucky it will only be me. :lol:

CameronD
17-04-2007, 11:24 PM
especially considering that you can now purchase fritz for your phone (pocket fritz I think).

Maybe phones should be outlawed in the playing hall all togeather (wheather off or on), I can see someone have their phone in their pocket... go to the toilet... check there position on the phone... then return to the game. Especially with all the cheating allegations in India. Thenn again... If someone wants to cheat at our level, no ones going to be able to stop them.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2007, 11:40 PM
In the discussion about whether Phil was a player or spectator some posters are not realising that there is a reason why the rule is harsher while a person is playing their game. This is that under such circumstances phone use is not merely a distraction but is also a cheating opportunity.

That's a point, but cheating hasn't been too much of a problem in Australasia.


It is the latter that has caused such a harsh penalty in the hope of completely stamping out mobile phone use by players.

Hmm, makes sense of this Law: "It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue."


We haven't had our first mobile phone default in Tassie yet. I'm rather dreading it; if I'm lucky it will only be me. :lol:

Nor in the Logan club :whistle: It's probably going to happen on a night where I don't mention the penalty since they should have got the message by now.:evil:

Basil
18-04-2007, 12:37 AM
It's probably going to happen on a night where I don't mention the penalty since they should have got the message by now.:evil:
Yes, if their phones are on and the network working, all messages should have got through.

Garvinator
18-04-2007, 12:39 AM
Nor in the Logan club :whistle: It's probably going to happen on a night where I don't mention the penalty since they should have got the message by now.:evil:
If you forget to give the mobile announcement, send them an sms ;)

Garvinator
18-04-2007, 12:45 AM
Maybe phones should be outlawed in the playing hall all togeather (wheather off or on)
Cameron,

You really need to read the laws of chess before commenting. Sorry to say this, but if you had of read the laws of chess, the quoted comment would not have been made.

From the laws of chess:


Article 12.2 b
It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. If a player’s mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play, that player shall lose the game. The score of the opponent shall be determined by the arbiter.

For almost all Australian tournaments the arbiter allows mobile phones to be brought into the playing area, but they must remain switched off at all times.

CameronD
18-04-2007, 01:02 AM
In the Australain championship (2006) I played an opponent who was listening to an electronic device with headphones, I complained after 15 minutes... arbiters ruling was a warning.

My recommendation is that players should not be given an exception to have a phone on them while they are playing (except in special circumstances). By giving everyone an exception, the law in regard to phones becomes practically non-existant. If I had a phone in my pocket, I could easily cheat with toilet breaks and you wouldn't have a clue about it. I would have to be sensible and make sure my results dont improve too drastically though.

Bill Gletsos
18-04-2007, 01:12 AM
In the Australain championship (2006) I played an opponent who was listening to an electronic device with headphones, I complained after 15 minutes... arbiters ruling was a warning. The arbiter obviously did not consider the device an electronic means of communication with regards Article 12.2b.

My recommendation is that players should not be given an exception to have a phone on them while they are playing (except in special circumstances). By giving everyone an exception, the law in regard to phones becomes practically non-existant. If I had a phone in my pocket, I could easily cheat with toilet breaks and you wouldn't have a clue about it. I would have to be sensible and make sure my results dont improve too drastically though.Other than metal detectors or body searches how do you actually prove that a player has a phone in their possession.

Rincewind
18-04-2007, 01:15 AM
The arbiter obviously did not consider the device an electronic means of communication.
Other than metal detectors or body searches how do you actually prove that a player has a phone in their possession.

If tournament halls had mobile phone network blockers like those found in some theatres and cinemas it would be a good start. Too much to ask for, I know.

CameronD
18-04-2007, 01:23 AM
In post 147 I said you cant stop a person cheating at our level, sad really how this is hurting the chess world at current with questions over many players.

Just before I remembered when I played my first tournament 18 months ago, I had expectations of a dead silent room, with no electronic equipment and people concentrating hard, I could have smelled the room. False illusions sadly, I should've been born 50 years ago maybe :disapp: everything are so hectic and people want things immediately these days. cancel that... lifes way better these days.

CameronD
18-04-2007, 01:25 AM
If tournament halls had mobile phone network blockers like those found in some theatres and cinemas it would be a good start. Too much to ask for, I know.

I think The US chess wanted to do something to block signals, but was against US laws. (read it in chessbase somewhere)

Basil
18-04-2007, 01:35 AM
I think The US chess wanted to do something to block signals, but was against US laws. (read it in chessbase somewhere)
I appreciate what you're saying Cameron. Good on you for persisting with your POV.

BTW, I think Axiom has copious quantities of aluminium foil if you ever wanted to experiment with wrapping a room up or similar. I know he'd help gratis.

Desmond
18-04-2007, 09:15 AM
You seem to express a contrary opinion in post #82No, there is a difference between discussing a decision to learn something for the future and seeking to retroactively change that decision.


Never even tried to justify the incident or myself, I just apologised for my mistake, clarified if I was to be dealt with as a player or a spectator and left it to the arbiter's to interpret and decide upon.With statements such as this:
'I was willing to accept any ban on myself as a spectator, but was prepared to fight against any action on myself as a player. '
it seems to me that you are gleefully pointing out that you can't be docked a point.

If you had been standing alongside a peer who's game had not finished, your phones both rang, he would lose a point and you would not. Where's the fairness?

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2007, 12:43 PM
If you forget to give the mobile announcement, send them an sms ;)
Heh, if an arbiter really did that, would it be considered entrapment?:uhoh:

Rincewind
18-04-2007, 03:30 PM
I think The US chess wanted to do something to block signals, but was against US laws. (read it in chessbase somewhere)

What's their position on preventing players from bringing firearms into the playing hall?

Phil Bourke
18-04-2007, 05:09 PM
With statements such as this:
'I was willing to accept any ban on myself as a spectator, but was prepared to fight against any action on myself as a player. '
it seems to me that you are gleefully pointing out that you can't be docked a point.
I wasn't gleefully pointing this out, but that is the rules, a player who has finished their game is a spectator not a player.

If you had been standing alongside a peer who's game had not finished, your phones both rang, he would lose a point and you would not. Where's the fairness?
Your problem lies with the rules, not me. Take it up with FIDE.

Basil
18-04-2007, 05:12 PM
What's their position on preventing players from bringing firearms into the playing hall?
It appears they are fine with it unless it goes off.

Desmond
18-04-2007, 06:27 PM
I wasn't gleefully pointing this out, but that is the rules, a player who has finished their game is a spectator not a player.

Your problem lies with the rules, not me. Take it up with FIDE.Ok, I accept that you are correct on all counts. Cheers.

Denis_Jessop
18-04-2007, 08:59 PM
I don't see why. If it's rescinded then penalties will become subjective - some arbiters will default (hope I've got it right now!) the offender while some will only issue warnings. It's a good thing to have uniformity on so that it is clearly understood that mobile phone use during a game is out.

In the discussion about whether Phil was a player or spectator some posters are not realising that there is a reason why the rule is harsher while a person is playing their game. This is that under such circumstances phone use is not merely a distraction but is also a cheating opportunity. It is the latter that has caused such a harsh penalty in the hope of completely stamping out mobile phone use by players.

We haven't had our first mobile phone default in Tassie yet. I'm rather dreading it; if I'm lucky it will only be me. :lol:

This whole business is a bit of a shemozzle created by the schlemiels at FIDE.

First, to be absolutley accurate (I think) the correct terminology is for the arbiter to declare the game lost by the offender - see Art.13.4.d.

The matter of penalties in this area is a bit odd, though.

1. A player who brings a mobile phone into the playing venue without the arbiter's authority breaches Art.12.2.b. (first sentence) - penalty: as per Art. 13.4.

2. A player whose mobile phone rings in the playing venue during play breaches Art.12.2.b. (second sentence) - penalty: mandatory loss of game.

3. A player who uses a mobile phone in the playing venue (apparently at any time though this may possibly be read down) breaches Art.13.7.b. - penalty: as per Art.13.4.

4. Anybody else who uses a mobile phone as in 3., above, breaches Art.13.7.b. but how this is to be enforced is not made clear. It does not seem to add anything to the general powers the organisers have over spectators etc, especially if the provisions of the article have not been brought to their attention. It has also been mischievously pointed out that the arbiter's power in Art.13.7.b. allows him to declare mobiles to be forbidden anywhere in the world (clearly another provision that needs to be read down).

One thing that is clear is that the mandatory loss of game applies only in the event of a player's mobile ringing during play, that is, play of his game. (See also Art.12.4.)

What is not immediately clear is why the words "during play" are in the second sentence of Art.12.2.b. when they are not in the first sentence.The answer seems to be that FIDE thinks a player is a player before his game starts but not after it finishes. Thus he can breach the first sentence of Art.12.2.b. before his game begins though he can't breach the second sentence until play begins. This seems to make sense. Indeed the offence of bringing a mobile into the playing venue is almost certainly committed when the player enters the venue. This means that there is no offence of being in possession of a mobile in the playing venue which would be more sensible.

FIDE should think of engaging some qualified drafters when they start playing with the Laws.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2007, 09:28 PM
What's their position on preventing players from bringing firearms into the playing hall?
Might depend on whether they think unarmed players would be easy meat for a deranged shooter (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JacobSullum/2007/04/18/virginia_techs_gun-free_zone_left_cho_seung-huis_victims_defenseless).

Spiny Norman
19-04-2007, 06:19 AM
What is not immediately clear is why the words "during play" are in the second sentence of Art.12.2.b. when they are not in the first sentence.The answer seems to be that FIDE thinks a player is a player before his game starts but not after it finishes. Thus he can breach the first sentence of Art.12.2.b. before his game begins though he can't breach the second sentence until play begins. This seems to make sense.
Might an arbiter take the view that a player who has finished their Round N game, whose phone then goes off, is a player in Round N+1 and should then automatically lose their Round N+1 game? :doh:

Denis_Jessop
19-04-2007, 12:01 PM
Might an arbiter take the view that a player who has finished their Round N game, whose phone then goes off, is a player in Round N+1 and should then automatically lose their Round N+1 game? :doh:

I wondered about that when I was posting though not in the context of a phone ringing as that applies only "during play" and I can't see that term capable of applying to intervals between rounds even in a thing like a blitz tourney where there may be only a few minutes between rounds.

This brings us back to the purpose or object of the laws about mobile phones. The one about phones ringing clearly is intended to stop disturbence of other players. In that case, it should also apply to a anybody whose phone rings while there are any games in progress but it doesn't. The one prohibiting use seems to be aimed at potential cheating as well as disturbance of players. The one about bringing a phone into the playing venue seems to have not much point at all as merely doing that if the phone doesn't ring or is not used is quite inoffensive.

DJ

ElevatorEscapee
19-04-2007, 06:10 PM
Uh-oh...

Everyone! STAND BACK NOW!!!

Mine's about to "GO OFF"!!!!!!!

...
....
......

Ooops, false alarm, everyone back to your positions. :)

Garvinator
20-04-2007, 11:24 AM
Games decided by mobile phone, are they meant to be entered as 1-0/0-1 or +/- for pairing purposes for next round of tournament?

Bill Gletsos
20-04-2007, 12:11 PM
Games decided by mobile phone, are they meant to be entered as 1-0/0-1 or +/- for pairing purposes for next round of tournament?They should be entered as 1-0/0-1, 0.5/0, 0/0.5 or 0-0.

Garvinator
27-04-2007, 03:14 AM
A distinction without a difference.- Jono's response to the difference between a forfeit and a loss with regards to mobile phone issues.

In all the hullabaloo in this thread, I see that the only comments about the difference was in rating terms.

In a tournament, the difference between whether it is a mobile phone forfeit or loss can have a major difference:

If it is awarded as a mobile phone 'forfeit', then the game does not count for colours/floats.

If it is awarded as a mobile phone 'loss', then the game does count for colours/floats.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2007, 01:36 PM
In a tournament, the difference between whether it is a mobile phone forfeit or loss can have a major difference:

If it is awarded as a mobile phone 'forfeit', then the game does not count for colours/floats.This is incorrect as Article F2 of the Swiss Rules clearly shows and as I mentioned previously in my post #64 http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=150283&postcount=64 in this thread.

Garvinator
27-04-2007, 03:12 PM
This is incorrect as Article F2 of the Swiss Rules clearly shows and as I mentioned previously in my post #64 http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=150283&postcount=64 in this thread.
:hmm: how is my statement incorrect?

All I was doing was spelling out that there is a distinction between a loss and forfeit in relation to pairing future rounds.

I had not stated that the game is deemed to be a mobile loss (instead of forfeit) because this now has been stated plenty of times in this thread.

Desmond
27-04-2007, 03:17 PM
Here we go......

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2007, 03:58 PM
:hmm: how is my statement incorrect?

All I was doing was spelling out that there is a distinction between a loss and forfeit in relation to pairing future rounds.Your use of the word forfeit is misleading.
The Swiss Rules make no distinction regarding the words forfeit or loss and in fact the word forfeit is never used.
The critical part is whether the game was actually played.

I had not stated that the game is deemed to be a mobile loss (instead of forfeit) because this now has been stated plenty of times in this thread.In which case you should not have used the words:

If it is awarded as a mobile phone 'forfeit', then the game does not count for colours/floats.

Bill Gletsos
27-04-2007, 04:00 PM
Here we go......:lol:

Phil Bourke
27-04-2007, 07:29 PM
Perhaps we should just go with the original rule :) No communication devices are permitted in the playing hall. Save all this hassle about loss/forfeit, did it ring/was it just an alarm/it didn't ring, just got accidently switched on and it makes that noise/it wasn't my phone.
It may be inconvenient to have to leave the phone back at the motel, or in the car, but geez it would be convenient and easier for arbitrators..........thats a phone, you've just lost/got yourself banned from the playing venue. :)

Basil
27-04-2007, 09:22 PM
arbitrators..........
-10 HCDs :P

NB Negative HCDs aren't paid for typos - only never before seen words! Except sometimes those words get +HCDs. Ah 'tis a minefield out there ;)

ElevatorEscapee
27-04-2007, 10:54 PM
They should be entered as 1-0/0-1, 0.5/0, 0/0.5 or 0-0.

What happens if they both go off at exactly the same time? Should it be 0.5-0.5, or 0-0? (or does that depend upon the position?)

Basil
28-04-2007, 12:05 AM
-10 HCDs :P arbitrators
Nah. +15 HCDs

Bill Gletsos
28-04-2007, 12:57 AM
What happens if they both go off at exactly the same time? Should it be 0.5-0.5, or 0-0? (or does that depend upon the position?)Previously answered. It is 0-0.

Phil Bourke
28-04-2007, 01:18 AM
Nah. +15 HCDs
I was going to penalise you some HCD's for attempted threadjacking :)
But seeing as how my penalty became a bonus, perhaps we won't mention it :D

Basil
28-04-2007, 01:39 AM
I was going to penalise you some HCD's for attempted threadjacking :)
I did take pause before I posted (you know how much I detest thread-jacking :oops: ) but when I realised which thread it was, the decision to fire away was somewhat easier.

Kevin Bonham
12-09-2008, 01:59 PM
Nigel Short has lost a game for a mobile phone sound as discussed here:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4903

The title is inaccurate as it was not a ringtone but a low battery noise that the phone was able to emit even when switched off.

In my view this is not a loss as the phone did not ring; it was not an incoming call or message. Furthermore one must assume the phone was authorised as if it was not the arbiters should have taken action sooner, since the phone was in clear view the whole time.

Southpaw Jim
12-09-2008, 07:18 PM
To pose a "tree falls in a forest" type of question, is it an offence if someone's phone receives a call while in silent/vibrate mode and they exit the playing hall to answer the call? Is this rule about the distraction, or the potential for cheating?

Something I've always wondered :hmm:

Rincewind
12-09-2008, 08:25 PM
12.2 (b) It is strictly forbidden to bring mobile phones or other electronic means of communication, not authorised by the arbiter, into the playing venue. ...

So you shouldn't do it without telling the arbiter. If the arbiter allows you to bring it in and leave it switched on for some reason (for example, you may be a medical doctor who needs to be contactable) then provided you don't distract anyone then it is probably ok.

Note also that according to the rules...

12.5 Players are not allowed to leave the `playing venue` without permission from the arbiter. The playing venue is defined as the playing area, rest rooms, refreshment area, area set aside for smoking and other places as designated by the arbiter.
The player having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area without permission of the arbiter.

Southpaw Jim
12-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Thanks Barry.

Actually, thinking about it, it's not really a dilemma for me - the only person I'd need to talk to during a tourney is my wife, if there was some kind of emergency with the kids, in which case I'd be forfeiting the game anyway!

Basil
12-09-2008, 08:39 PM
Thanks Barry.

Actually, thinking about it, it's not really a dilemma for me - the only person I'd need to talk to during a tourney is my wife, if there was some kind of emergency with the kids, in which case I'd be forfeiting the game anyway!
We discover a second point of difference between us ;) :lol:

Southpaw Jim
12-09-2008, 09:48 PM
Don't believe it for a second!!

Scary thought: are you my evil right-wing twin? :P :lol:

Denis_Jessop
14-09-2008, 08:56 PM
Nigel Short has lost a game for a mobile phone sound as discussed here:

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4903

The title is inaccurate as it was not a ringtone but a low battery noise that the phone was able to emit even when switched off.

In my view this is not a loss as the phone did not ring; it was not an incoming call or message. Furthermore one must assume the phone was authorised as if it was not the arbiters should have taken action sooner, since the phone was in clear view the whole time.

I aagree - Nigel must be becoming very sporting in his old age. If, as I assume, the arbiter (Manuel Weeks, by the way) had allowed phones but directed that they be switched off, it would appear that Nigel had done all that he was asked to do to comply with that part of the Laws. What is not clear from thr report is whether the phone emitted a ring tone (this is suggested) or a "low battery" beep. The latter should not be regarded as a "ring". if the phone does the former for a low battery, the phone is odd and obviously not recommended for chess players. Incidentally, it appears that Nigel resigned so that it was not necessary for Manuel to determine Ketevan's score under the relevant law.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2008, 09:53 PM
I think it's reasonable for an arbiter who hears a mobile phone making a noise to assume it is ringing with the onus being on the opponent to demonstrate otherwise, perhaps by appealling. Clearly Short did not appeal in this case but let it go without a fight.

Garvinator
14-09-2008, 10:29 PM
I do recall a Geurt Gijssen article from chesscafe giving his opinions and opinions from fide rules committee discussions on this type of matter.

I have been unable to find the article. I also recall previous discussion on matters related to this on here.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2008, 11:42 PM
Previous discussion was on this thread: http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=5034

AR linked to some old Gijssen articles that predate the 2005 Laws but may still have some relevance on that thread. Bill linked to some more recent ones in this (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=126223&postcount=112) post.

CameronD
14-09-2008, 11:58 PM
By memory, there were at least 2 phone losses in the kings of chess U2000 division, 1 player claiming ignorance of the laws.

Trent Parker
15-09-2008, 08:03 AM
If you remove the battery you remove the sound!

Desmond
15-09-2008, 09:28 AM
If you remove the battery you remove the sound!
But that is not enough to satisfy the stupid Laws, as you are still bringing it to the venue.

Basil
15-09-2008, 10:20 AM
If a mobile phone rings, but you previously slaughtered the field (including the arbiters), does the phone make a sound?

MichaelBaron
15-09-2008, 12:03 PM
Interestingly, Short's did not receive a phone call or sms (he turned his mobile off before the start of the round) but it was a low batter warning that cost him the game.

I find this rule completely ridiculous. How can one recieve help during the game through a low battery signal? I wonder if it is possible to bring some common sense into application of the chess rules! :hmm:

Southpaw Jim
15-09-2008, 12:19 PM
Should the arbiter be burdened with the onus of determining the distinction between the ringtone and low battery signal for that make and model of phone? I thought this rule was as much about the disturbance as it was about receiving outside help :hmm:

CameronD
15-09-2008, 07:57 PM
Interestingly, Short's did not receive a phone call or sms (he turned his mobile off before the start of the round) but it was a low batter warning that cost him the game.

I find this rule completely ridiculous. How can one recieve help during the game through a low battery signal? I wonder if it is possible to bring some common sense into application of the chess rules! :hmm:

My understanding of the short situation, was that once his phone made a noise, he conceded his game. I dont think the opponent or arbiter were involved. I would record the game as a resignation instead of loss by mobile phone and not use this as a precedent.

Basil
15-09-2008, 11:18 PM
I would like to quantify the sum of human (global) discussion and energy expended on this matter (including my own) and see that figure written down.

I'm not sure what the unit measurement would be, but I believe the end result would look mighty massive. What a shame for humanity.

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2008, 11:27 PM
I would like to quantify the sum of human (global) discussion and energy expended on this matter (including my own) and see that figure written down.

I'd like to send FIDE the bill for the same at a rate of, oh, a dollar per word, since about half an hour's careful deliberation before they worded the new rule would have made it all unnecessary.

Garvinator
15-09-2008, 11:37 PM
I'd like to send FIDE the bill for the same at a rate of, oh, a dollar per word, since about half an hour's careful deliberation before they worded the new rule would have made it all unnecessary.
Well all rules are up for new proposals. Have there been any changes proposed?

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2008, 12:12 AM
Well all rules are up for new proposals. Have there been any changes proposed?

Several changes have been proposed (there was an email I received that I mentioned on the proposed warning thread) but I don't know what the current status of those is as I have not been sent anything since.