Home > Polls > Correct Behaviour – Internet democrazy

Correct Behaviour – Internet democrazy

This happened to one of my friends. Besides it being a funny story, it leads to a moral dilemma.

He was playing in the last round for the first place. He was better, though not winning, in the ending and the opponent was running out of time. At some moment the opponent claimed a draw. The arbiter asked him to play on. He refused claiming that his opponent “would try to trick him”. The arbiter saw his point and declared a draw. My friend appealed.

The quickly put together appeals committee included the arbiter and the travel companion of the opponent. It also included the hotel manager, who was seen as unbiased. With the votes 3-2, they decided to declare the game a draw. The opponent’s travel companion voted for a win for my friend; so no unfair bias there. The hotel manager voted for a draw. When asked if he played chess, he said, “yes.” My friend rephrased: “Do you know how the pieces move?” The answer was “most of them.”

Jokes aside: let’s vote on whether or not the committee made the right decision.

Categories: Polls Tags:
  1. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:32 | #1

    Absolutely no.

  2. John Cox
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:33 | #2

    Hard to say whether the arbiter was right without knowing the position (or indeed the rules), but I would have thought admitting that you might get tricked was tantamount to admitting that the position might be won with normal play and thus that the correct decision was to allow play to continue.

    Anyway, of course the arbiter shouldn’t change his mind because a player refuses to accept his decision; that’s elementary.

  3. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:33 | #3

    I play till the bare kings…and even some moves more! 🙂

  4. Jacob Aagaard
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:37 | #4

    @garryk
    Like Fischer once did!

  5. Jacob Aagaard
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:38 | #5

    @John Cox
    Let’s ignore the arbiter’s confusion and say that: if you were the arbiter, what would you judge.

  6. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:54 | #6

    I’ve won many times the ending of R+B vs R…I know it’s a theoretical draw but it’s not my fault if my opponents don’t know how to draw it!

  7. Remco G
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:54 | #7

    This was apparently a 10.2 decision. The rule states that “the decision of the arbiter is final”, that is, appeals against it aren’t possible.

    It sounds like the arbiter got it completely wrong, of course (if you can still fall for tricks, then that shows that you can still lose in a normal way and is thus an argument for refusing the claim outright), but still, no appeals against that rule.

    I know an arbiter, rated ~2200 himself, who had to decide on a draw claim in K+R v K+N by a ~2400 player. He postponed his decision and then awarded the draw after flag fall. Two weeks later in another tournament he was himself the opponent of the ~2400, and they reached the same endgame! He had the knight and offered a draw, but it was was refused and he gave away the knight in time trouble…

  8. John Cox
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:57 | #8

    Jacob Aagaard :@John Cox Let’s ignore the arbiter’s confusion and say that: if you were the arbiter, what would you judge.

    Well, I’d say they should play on while I watched, of course, and if the chap wouldn’t play then he loses.

    K&R v K&N also caused a storm in England; it decided (I think) the county championship, and people got very exercised about the arbiter declaring it drawn.

  9. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 11:58 | #9

    @Remco G

    He had the knight and offered a draw. I don’t understand why people don’t realize that draw offers in this situations should be done by the superior side…

  10. Till Plewe
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:02 | #10

    “would try to trick him”

    what else is chess about and how would that be any different from what happened in the Anand-Carlsen match?

  11. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:23 | #11

    @garryk
    “I don’t understand why people don’t realize that draw offers in this situations should be done by the superior side…”
    I agree but where is this mentioned in the Fide rules as Jacob would ask? Nowhere.

    Is it disturbing? From one draw offer nobody can complain it is disturbing.

    Is it sportsmanship? Well now we reach the raging debate of the other thread. It is not forbidden so it is ok but no you just stated that it is not ok but then why?

  12. Jacob Aagaard
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:28 | #12

    @brabo
    As far as I know there are clear rules about not using draw offers as a way to disturb the opponent. I also think the superior side should usually be the one to offer the draw, but is it really a test of character?

  13. Remco G
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:29 | #13

    @garryk: sure, but they both knew that the opponent had been the weaker side two weeks ago and thought it was drawish enough to *claim* a draw. That’s not quite the normal situation. But let’s not derail the discussion to that, I just thought it was a funny 10.2 anecdote 🙂

    @brabo: 12.6 does note that an “unreasonable” draw offer is an example of a forbidden distraction. How much worse you need to be for the offer to be unreasonable is of course slightly underdefined…

  14. Indra Polak
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:32 | #14

    If he was afraid he would get tricked he should have made sure he had plenty of time to cope with those tricks. And (as a side note) I do no see how having little or more time can prevent you from being tricked: GM’s get tricked all the time with plenty of time on the clocks. So the argument is no good. Therefore, I say both players have to play on while there is still mating potential on the board. If you don’t like a clock, don’t play chess.

  15. John Cox
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:40 | #15

    >I also think the superior side should usually be the one to offer the draw, but is it really a test of character?

    Well, it’s just good manners, isn’t it? Isn’t that character?

  16. Jacob Aagaard
    February 28th, 2014 at 12:59 | #16

    @John Cox
    Hardly a big test. It is good manners to hold the door for a woman, but if you fail to, does not mean you should be written off…

  17. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:07 | #17

    @Remco G
    If you know that it is a theoretical draw like in the example of rook against knight then is it really abnormal offering a draw? You can assume that you know how to defend this easily and then make the logical conclusion that it has no sense to continue playing.
    You can’t penalize a player for making such conclusion.

    No, i would never offer a draw in such situation and in fact I don’t propose draws against higher rated players as I assume they have to know when it should be finished. Last I did call the arbiter as my opponent ( a grandmaster) didn’t want to offer a draw in a dead position just trying to flag me.

  18. John Cox
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:10 | #18

    Jacob Aagaard :@John Cox Hardly a big test. It is good manners to hold the door for a woman, but if you fail to, does not mean you should be written off…

    Well, no, I agree. I’m not quite sure what we’re discussing.

  19. John Johnson
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:12 | #19

    Not sure if good manners are an automatic precursor to character. But I do believe character is somewhat nurtured, but to what degree is not clear. However, I am foursquare in favor of good manners, and those definitely require some nurturing. How is that for a circular arguement?

  20. Mario
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:20 | #20

    Maybe chess need something like this ¿? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_golf#Etiquette

  21. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:48 | #21

    I need to clarify. In this case the superior side is not only “superior” but cannot lose in any way…so you offer to him something (a draw) that he already has. This is in my opinion a disturb to an opponent…it’s like saying – I can draw this position even blinded so why haven’t you already offered a draw to me?

    If the superior side has also some chance of losing (let’s say, Queen vs Rook+Bishop) then the draw offer is reasonable. But if I cannot lose, what are you offering me? I already have a draw in my hand and if I continue then I think I can cause you some problems.

    As I said, I’ve won countless times the ending R+B vs R…

  22. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:56 | #22

    @brabo
    A theoretical draw is not an “easy” draw, so you can’t assume somebody knows how to reach the draw.

  23. wim
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:57 | #23

    play on, since the position retains practical chances (“tricks”). By the way, KR vs KN is a three-results position.

  24. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 13:59 | #24

    @brabo
    Even one draw offer is disturbing if it’s illogical. Let’s say I have K+B+N vs K. 30 moves have passed and I haven’t made any progress. The player with the bare king can make a draw offer? I think no. I judge the draw offer as an offense – you don’t know how to mate me, don’t make me lose time!

  25. Nikos Ntirlis
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:21 | #25

    What type of tournament was that? Fide rated? Rated at all? Blitz?

    Obviously offering a draw in this type of thing is not forbidden. Is it bad manners? My chess education says “yes”, but in this example i don’t think that it is a big deal. Draw offers is a part of the game and it has its own strategy.

    One can claim to be annoyed by a draw offer only after he has rejected one and the situation hasn’t changed dramatically when another draw offer comes. Still, for the arbiter to punish the player after the second draw offer would be wrong in my opinion unless the “punishment” is just a note. But, if it happens the third time, then it is clear that it falls under the rule about “trying to be annoying against your opponent”.

  26. Thomas
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:28 | #26

    Why is the discussion about draw offers?
    Jacob’s question was about the above mentioned game.
    And here the arbiter was completely wrong to my opinion.
    10.2. is not about positions, it’s about trying to win.
    You can claim a draw if your opponent clearly plays on time only, not trying to win the position.
    It is not about playing on in level positions.
    Many – far too many – arbiters get that wrong.

  27. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:33 | #27

    @garryk
    “Even one draw offer is disturbing if it’s illogical.”
    Somebody complaining about 1 wrong draw-offer, is in my opinion a person very easily agitated. Calm down, it is just a game.

    If you don’t make progress after 30 moves and you know that the win takes more than the 20 moves remaining then it is perfectly understandable to offer a draw with bare king. You just don’t want to waste your time further for the inevitable draw. However as happened with a former women-worldchampion, I would really enjoy not offering the draw and see my opponent suffer not winning the game. Why would I stop his/her suffering by offering a draw? 🙂

  28. Remco G
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:35 | #28

    I agree, Thomas.

    It’s an advantage of the spread of increments — with an increment, rule 10.2 doesn’t apply.

  29. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:39 | #29

    @brabo

    I disagree strongly. Making progress is a subjective matter. I can take the game to a position I know how to win even if theoretically I’m not making progress. Nobody knows without tablebases if the win requires more than 20 moves so a draw offer in that situation is my opinion very disturbing.

  30. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:40 | #30

    @Thomas

    I think because in this case a “draw offer” is actually a “draw claim”. You don’t offer anything with a knight against a rook.

  31. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:41 | #31

    @garryk
    “A theoretical draw is not an “easy” draw, so you can’t assume somebody knows how to reach the draw.”
    I would quality myself as sufficiently experienced to know this. However I do understand that a lot of weaker players don’t realize this. If those weaker players are arbiters then you get some very strange decisions like the example. I’ve seen plenty of times that the wrong decision was made as the technical knowledge of the arbiter was insufficient. It is not the arbiter his fault that he made the wrong decision but the people whom made the rules. It is one of the big reasons why we are now more and more shifting to increments.

    Wrong draw offers are made in the majority of the cases because the weaker player doesn’t realize that it is wrong. Such wrong draw offers should never be penalized during a game (maximum a warning if it happens regularly). Afterwards I tell my opponent that normally we don’t propose a draw in such position and at the same time I offer him a drink to make clear that it is just a friendly advise.

  32. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:42 | #32

    @Thomas
    With little time it’s almost impossible to distinguish between trying to win the position and trying to win on time. Unless the superior side chases the pieces around without any sense, you can’t know if one side is making progress.

  33. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:44 | #33

    @brabo
    Once in a while I agree with you. The problem is the rule, not the arbiters that don’t have enough knowledge. And when I say a draw offer is disturbing I don’t mean I’d like a penalization for my opponent, just a friendly warning explaining to him he isn’t really offering anything…

  34. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:48 | #34

    @Thomas
    ” Why is the discussion about draw offers?
    Jacob’s question was about the above mentioned game.
    And here the arbiter was completely wrong to my opinion.
    10.2. is not about positions, it’s about trying to win. ”
    How can a weaker player define that somebody stronger is trying to win? An anecdote which i mentioned on my blog: A player rated 2000 elo asks me in the game after i refused his drawoffer what i am still willing to do. There is nothing to play anymore for so it is a dead draw and you are just trying to drag the game. No need to say that i won the game with a nice pawnsacrifice.

    It is very difficult to define if somebody is trying still to win the position or not anymore. Sometimes I even don’t know myself in my own games. I just wait and look if some opportunity pops up. Sometimes they do and sometimes not.

    So the judgement of a correct/ wrong draw offer and the judgement of still trying or not trying to win, are very similar.

  35. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 14:56 | #35

    @garryk
    ” Nobody knows without tablebases if the win requires more than 20 moves so a draw offer in that situation is my opinion very disturbing. ”
    I can make from quite some elementary positions pretty good guesses based on my experience working with tablebases. Likely some people can do much better than myself. I know the most difficult ones with B+N take more than 30 moves (34 max) so if no progress is made for 30 moves then it is not unreasonable to state that still more than 20 moves are necessary.

  36. Remco G
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:00 | #36

    I thought that was a pretty good effort brabo, you managed four posts in this thread without mentioning the blog!

  37. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:06 | #37

    @garryk
    “I think because in this case a “draw offer” is actually a “draw claim”.”

    Probably you are not aware but a draw claim is always a draw offer. See fiderules: 9.b.3:
    “A claim of a draw under Article 9.2, 9.3 or 10.2 shall be considered to be an
    offer of a draw.”

    A correct arbiter will always first ask the opponent if he agrees or not and only then will investigate the claim.

    In my last game I used a bit different procedure. A repetition popped up in a complex position where we could both deviate. Instead of claiming the draw after the 3rd time (without playing it on the board), i first asked my opponent, an IM if he agreed which he did. If he would agreed not then I would’ve contacted the arbiter. This way I avoided calling the arbiter and making a lot of noise for the other players.

  38. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:11 | #38

    @Remco G
    “I thought that was a pretty good effort brabo, you managed four posts in this thread without mentioning the blog!”

    Yes I am becoming sloppy. 🙂 I should’ve mentioned that I have on my blog some nice articles in which tablebases are discussed.

  39. dvigorito
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:22 | #39

    ridiculous…so if your position is worse, but technically drawn (um, like the starting position) then you can just let your time get low and claim a draw. with delay/increment there should be very few draw rulings (K+R vs K+R) because if it’s a draw, just hold it.

  40. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:28 | #40

    @brabo
    A draw claim is a draw offer but a draw offer shouldn’t be a draw claim…but it was in this case. It’s because of this I think the offer was disrespectful. If you want to make a draw claim, please do it, but don’t make a draw offer intending to do a draw claim.

  41. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:32 | #41

    @brabo
    You forget to add – against perfect opposition. Let’s make an example. Position A is won in 34 moves with difficult decision for the strongest side and easy decisions for the weaker side. After 30 moves I arrive at position B that is won in 25 moves against perfect opposition (so outside the 50 moves rule) but it requires very difficult decisions from the weaker side while the minimum mistake is punished with an easy and immediate win. Going from position A to position B can be considered a progress? Theoretically not, practically yes. I’d win most of the time from position B because it’s almost impossible to make 25 perfect moves.

  42. Thomas
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:32 | #42

    garryk :

    Unless the superior side chases the pieces around without any sense …

    And this is exactly the meaning of 10.2, nothing else.
    If it is not so obvious, the game should continue. Why not?

  43. John Cox
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:33 | #43

    dvigorito :ridiculous…so if your position is worse, but technically drawn (um, like the starting position) then you can just let your time get low and claim a draw. with delay/increment there should be very few draw rulings (K+R vs K+R) because if it’s a draw, just hold it.

    No, with increments there’s no 10.2. It’s only for games with a fixed amount of time to a finish.

  44. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:33 | #44

    @brabo

    In fact I’d like to visit brabo’s blog…but I don’t remember the address! 😉

  45. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:52 | #45

    @garryk
    “but don’t make a draw offer intending to do a draw claim.”
    But that is exactly what I did in my last game. The big benefit of offering instead of claiming is that the noise for the other players is reduced to the bare minimum. Getting an arbiter to your table, explaining the situation is much more fuss than a draw offer.

  46. Ray
    February 28th, 2014 at 15:55 | #46

    @Remco G
    I don’t think it was really sportmanlike of the hotel manager.

  47. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:00 | #47

    @brabo
    It’s a different situation. He knows you can obtain the draw if the arbiter is called so he intelligently avoid the fuss. In the original situation (Rook against Knight), you can’t obtain anything if the arbiter is called (or at least you shouldn’t…) so a draw offer is – in my opinion – out of place.

  48. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:03 | #48

    @garryk
    Both sides are in most cases making suboptimal moves.
    However in the example of B+N as you mentioned, it is almost always the stronger side making the suboptimal moves. With the bare king there is little to go wrong. So in that scenario it is much easier to predict how many moves are minimum necessary.

  49. Mattovsky
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:06 | #49

    It’s impossible to answer the question since almost all the important details are missing in the description of the case. Which time control was used? What was the exact final position? What happened in the previous moves? How much time was left when the draw was claimed? Was the claim formally correct? On which specific rule was the claim based? Etc. etc.

    Besides that nothing really makes sense in this story. An appeals committee obviously cannot be “quickly be put together”. Either it was formed before the start of the tournament or there is none. And if it was 10.2 claim (what else could it be?), no appeal is possible anyway.

  50. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:09 | #50

    @brabo
    In my experience is the opposite. The weaker side lives on the edge of the loss so has to make more difficult decisions. With the bare king you can make many mistakes, for example being mated! 😉

  51. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:09 | #51

    @garryk
    “In the original situation (Rook against Knight), you can’t obtain anything if the arbiter is called (or at least you shouldn’t…) so a draw offer is – in my opinion – out of place.”

    A lot of weaker players had never this position on the board and only heard that it is a draw. I am not blaming them of their ignorance that a draw offer/ claim is inappropriate. We should not punish people for their ignorance but explain them why.

    How do you know if it is ignorance or on purpose a player is offering a draw? Well often you don’t know and I am always assuming the opponent has the best intentions. Unfortunately we are living in a society where lots of people are continuously feel threatened and only expect the worst.

  52. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 16:17 | #52

    @garryk
    Everybody knows with B+N that you have to go to the opposite side of the correct bishopcorner if you are pushed to the side of the board. For the rest you just need to wait and see. Did you ever see the video of the case Anna Ushenina – Olga Girya then it becomes pretty clear?

    Yes there are endgames with other material where the defense is more difficult but in this particular example of B+N it is pretty clear that the attacker has the much more difficult task.

  53. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 17:50 | #53

    @brabo
    Above master level (let’s say 2200 Elo) ignorance is not a plausible excuse.

  54. garryk
    February 28th, 2014 at 17:51 | #54

    @brabo
    I agree the example is not best suited…R+B vs R is my favourite ending…the side with the rook can go wrong very easily…and it’s not easy to learn the drawing technique as the computer doesn’t play the most tricky moves for the superior side…

  55. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 18:22 | #55

    @garryk
    “Above master level (let’s say 2200 Elo) ignorance is not a plausible excuse.”
    You would expect that a women worldchampion would know how to mate with B+N but she didn’t. I would not be surprised if some +2200 players are not aware that offering a draw with N against R is not appropriate.

    From the arbiter in the example of Remco one indeed should expect a correct behavior but maybe he simply didn’t know. I don’t find this impossible.

  56. Thomas
    February 28th, 2014 at 18:29 | #56

    Imagine Anand claiming a draw against Carlsen in Game 6.
    “He’s just trying to trick me!”.

    Yes. Carlsen tricked him.

  57. Ashish
    February 28th, 2014 at 18:29 | #57

    @brabo Do some +2200 players not realize that the knight is a weaker piece than the rook, i.e. that they have the worse position?

  58. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 18:30 | #58

    @garryk
    R+B vs R

    If you know the second line defense then it is not so difficult to defend (with a minimum amount of time left).

    As this endgame is normally a draw, it is difficult to state that the stronger side made inaccurate moves. You just go from one draw-position to another one. Here we are waiting for the mistake of the defender which is a very different game compared with the B+N endgame. Obviously a different game means different draw offers. Here only if defense is easy and 50 move rule is close, it is ok to offer a draw as weaker player.

  59. brabo
    February 28th, 2014 at 18:37 | #59

    @Ashish
    Rook against Knight is not a worse position. It is a draw. If you follow that logic then you can propose a draw.
    Of course you are excluding this way the technical difficulties to hold the draw but I can imagine that some +2200 players are heavily underestimating the technical difficulties just like the women worldchampion heavily underestimated the difficulty of giving mate with B+N.

    Underestimating leads to wrong judgements which leads to bad draw offers.

  60. ghenghisclown
    March 1st, 2014 at 02:01 | #60

    Till Plewe :
    “would try to trick him”
    what else is chess about and how would that be any different from what happened in the Anand-Carlsen match?

    Totally agree

  61. James
    March 1st, 2014 at 13:36 | #61

    Apart from really stupid positions like K+R vs K+R and the like, the game should go on unless both players agree to a draw imo.

  62. davegrass
    March 1st, 2014 at 16:21 | #62

    Hey, I keep hearing about a really cool blog on here. Could somebody please post a link?

  63. Jesse
    March 1st, 2014 at 16:28 | #63

    In this case the arbiter knew as much of the fide handbook as the hotel manager. The game should have continued and the player claiming the win should have gotten a warning for having made an absurd claim.

    If one player is just trying to win on time, and isn’t trying to improve their position, the position can be declared a draw.

    A note to stronger players, and weaker arbiters, it’s always better to organize a rules committee BEFORE the start of events/rounds and they should be composed of certified arbiters and, if there is just one, include the strongest players.

  64. SovietSchool
    March 1st, 2014 at 23:25 | #64

    What was the position? I have not seen that in this thread. The 10.2 decisions are quite subjective but that’s ok if consistently applied. I think in England Gawain jones was forced to take a draw with r and knight. Vs rook. That seeme unair to me But again it would depend how the moves were played thats why there are arbiters.the

  65. Stefan Rosenbrand
    March 2nd, 2014 at 23:57 | #65

    This type of decision is madness. A friend of mine had a similar situation he lost on time in a completely drawn ending with no tricks available to either side. he claimed a draw but the arbiter didn’t even bother to react. When the game finished there was a lot of upset by some players. The arbiter declared that the game was stile won by black (his opponent) because in the 2 pawn to 2 pawn battle his pawns were further advanced and thus he had a space advantage and better chances according to a judge. Complete madness of course black couldn’t force zugzwang so it was an easy draw. The arbiter here was not even rated above 2000. I offered to explain to him why it was a easy draw. He declined it and took a very corrupt decision. Strangely enough the player that was declared the winner of that game played for the team that organized the whole event.

    This situation is also just Madness. Lately it has been shown that grinding down an opponent in a technically drawn position is actually a pretty good winning strategy. (Carlsen cough Carlsen) . The person who is slightly better can try to create little problems over and over till the defending side makes a mistake. The fact that this opponent was low on time would have only helped the progress. The whole he will try to trick me is just complete bogus. If there is no time increment and you find yourself with not enough time to play the endgame accurately then you have failed in managing your time correctly and thus you don’t deserve a draw. Not even to mention that the whole situation goes against multiple rules (a win for his friend really).

    Honestly If i was this guy i would be upset enough to sue these people (I tend to value justice quite highly).

  66. Mark Moorman
    March 3rd, 2014 at 01:31 | #66

    Play on for all of the well stated reasons above. I had an amusing incident this weekend. The TD announced: “turn off your cell phones. If it rings once your clock will be docked x-amount of minutes (I forget what he said), and if it rings a second time it is a forfeit.” My opponents phone rang twice (others in the room did make faces, appeared disturbed—I’m ADHD and distract myself, so no problem). The second ring came in the end game which I had luckily converted from looking like a loss to looking like a draw. I just ignored the cell phone ring since I do not want to win a game on a technicality/ BS. A bit later it was a clear draw and I offered—I thought he might just accept since I had let him live. He refused, played a few moves, saw what was there, and then offered a draw which I accepted. I pulled him aside to warn him about his phone—he was not a native speaker, and seemed to be not that strong in English so I thought he may have not understood the announcement.

  67. Jacob Aagaard
    March 3rd, 2014 at 11:18 | #67

    @Mark Moorman
    Actually the FIDE rules are MAD on the case of mobile phones. Because the rule is that the arbiter has to forfeit the offender, and then evaluate the correct result for the other player. This means that if you are trying to “trick” your opponent, you can lose your chance to win the game! I have even seen an arbiter giving a 0 for the other player as well, thus making it 0-0.

    But obviously this has nothing to do with the case mentioned here.

  68. Remco G
    March 3rd, 2014 at 11:41 | #68

    Are you sure, Jacob? I read the following the rules (12.3.b): “If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.”

    I’m not aware of any rule like what you’re describing.

  69. brabo
    March 3rd, 2014 at 11:43 | #69

    http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article

    12.3.b Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, unless they are completely switched off. If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game. The opponent shall win. However, if the opponent cannot win the game by any series of legal moves, his score shall be a draw.

    Clearly the result 0-0 is impossible.

    However from 1st of July 2014 the rule will be:
    11.3.b During play, a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone and/or other electronic
    means of communication in the playing venue. If it is evident that a player
    brought such a device into the playing venue, he shall lose the game. The
    opponent shall win.
    The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
    The arbiter may require the player to allow his clothes, bags or other items to be
    inspected, in private. The arbiter or a person authorised by the arbiter shall inspect
    the player and shall be of the same gender as the player. If a player refuses to
    cooperate with these obligations, the arbiter shall take measures in accordance
    with Article 12.9.

  70. Nikos Ntirlis
    March 3rd, 2014 at 11:55 | #70

    By the way, the new FIDE rules are much more logical and create much less problems compared with the ones they solve, so imho they are to the correct direction. There was a ChessCafe article on them recently (if someone cannot find the link i can provide it).

  71. Jacob Aagaard
    March 3rd, 2014 at 12:02 | #71

    @Remco G
    Great. They changed it then.

  72. brabo
    March 3rd, 2014 at 12:35 | #72

    In several Western countries there is heavy protest against the new fide rule about mobiles. In fact quite some federations will put the less severe penalty to zero. Reason is that a lot of players insist of having their mobiles with them to use immediately before or after the game as they don’t have a safe place to store the mobile during the games. Amateur chess is not the same as professional chess.

  73. TC
    March 3rd, 2014 at 21:14 | #73

    @brabo
    They can have it with them, it just has to be powered off.

    “…Without the permission of the arbiter a player is forbidden to have a mobile phone or other electronic means of communication in the playing venue, ***unless they are completely switched off.***”

  74. brabo
    March 3rd, 2014 at 22:22 | #74

    @TC
    You only read the first part of my comment:
    “However from 1st of July 2014 the rule will be: …. so not yet applicable but very soon. My federation was already busy with debating the new rule and I heard others too.

  75. Jesse Gersenson
    March 4th, 2014 at 05:33 | #75

    @ brabo “Clearly the result 0-0 is impossible.”

    12.8
    Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game. The arbiter shall decide the score of the opponent.

  76. brabo
    March 4th, 2014 at 07:16 | #76

    @Jesse Gersenson
    You are taking my statement out of his context. I clearly stated before that I was talking about the rule : “12.3.b….” and for that rule the result 0-0 is impossible.

  77. Jesse Gersenson
    March 4th, 2014 at 14:02 | #77

    @brabo, you want to focus on 12.3.b and consider the other rules ‘out of context’. I think that’s inane but to entertain the idea and show it’s flawed…

    12.7 Infraction of any part of Articles 12.1 to 12.6 shall lead to penalties in accordance with Article 13.4.

    To clarify 12.7 says part of 12.3.b is 13.4. Here is a snippet of 13.4

    13.4 The arbiter can apply one or more of the following penalties:
    d. declaring the game to be lost
    e. reducing the points scored in the game by the offending party

    It’s common for arbiters to have compound problems before them. Cases where multiple infractions occur at the same time. So it’s indeed possible for both players to have been penalized with a net result of 0-0.

    A simple case: at the same moment both players phone’s rang. How do you score the match?

  78. brabo
    March 4th, 2014 at 15:00 | #78

    @Jesse Gersenson

    12.3.b states that the opponent shall lose. Article 13.4 gives the option still to add something on top. I can imagine if it is already the 2nd or 3rd round the same player violates the rule that expulsion can be a reasonable judgement.

    “A simple case: at the same moment both players phone’s rang. How do you score the match?”

    This is a theoretical case. I’ve never seen, heard or read a judgement of such case.
    I believe here the preface of the laws of chess is applicable:

    “The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. 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.”

    I agree with you that 0-0 is in that special case a very plausible judgement.

  1. No trackbacks yet.