Does your League still have adjournments?

[Ian Thompson]

I had an adjournment a few years ago where I turned up at my opponents club and he announced that he was also playing in a match that night but would play me at the same time, which he did (he drew the game from a worse position as it happened). Anyone like to comment on whether that is legal?

Definitely not. Looking at the scoresheet from one game could help him with the other game, e.g. the new game is the same opening as the adjourned game was. Also, although pretty unlikely, both games could end up in similar positions, so one game would be providing advice for the other one.

[Sean Hewitt]

Of course, I agree that it should not be allowed and I wouldn't allow it in one of my events. My point is that the FIDE laws of chess do not prevent it.

Looking at the scoresheet from one game could help him with the other game, e.g. the new game is the same opening as the adjourned game was. Also, although pretty unlikely, both games could end up in similar positions, so one game would be providing advice for the other one.

Is that not the same as sitting next to someone in a match or congress where the same opening is being played?

[Alex Holowczak]

I've sometimes got up to go out of the room to get a drink or some fresh air or go to the toilet, just as my opponent makes a move. I've usually just carried on and then come back to play my move, not realising that I technically had to get the permission of the arbiter!

That's fine, just don't look back at what he did! If you're in the process of leaving the room, and during that walk, the player makes his move, you can't be expected to then ask the arbiter... It's probably sufficient at a practical level to shut your mind off to what he's doing, and carry on your way.

[Ian Thompson]

Of course, I agree that it should not be allowed and I wouldn't allow it in one of my events. My point is that the FIDE laws of chess do not prevent it.

Looking at the scoresheet from one game could help him with the other game, e.g. the new game is the same opening as the adjourned game was. Also, although pretty unlikely, both games could end up in similar positions, so one game would be providing advice for the other one.

Is that not the same as sitting next to someone in a match or congress where the same opening is being played?

If you mean a player watching someone else's game and copying their moves, or even just deciding to analyse the moves being played in the other game because they've been played in the other game, then, yes, that is a similar rule infringement - both violate Rule 12.3 a. " During play the players are forbidden to make use of any ... sources of information ...". Of course, the chances of someone getting caught doing this are negligible.

[Richard Thursby]

Also, although pretty unlikely, both games could end up in similar positions, so one game would be providing advice for the other one.

Doesn't that mean anyone giving a simultaneous exhibition (where it's quite possible that similar positions might arise) is breaking the rules?

[Roger de Coverly]

If you mean a player watching someone else's game and copying their moves, or even just deciding to analyse the moves being played in the other game because they've been played in the other game, then, yes, that is a similar rule infringement - both violate Rule 12.3 a. " During play the players are forbidden to make use of any ... sources of information ..."

It's long been accepted that you are not prevented from playing moves because someone else in the event had also played them. It does suggest though that 12.3a needs rewording to support this.

Doesn't that mean anyone giving a simultaneous exhibition (where it's quite possible that similar positions might arise) is breaking the rules?

The FIDE laws are (mostly) competition rules.Simuls (like correspondence play) are outside the scope of the FIDE laws for competition rules. Obviously "how the pieces move" is unchanged.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Also, although pretty unlikely, both games could end up in similar positions, so one game would be providing advice for the other one.

Doesn't that mean anyone giving a simultaneous exhibition (where it's quite possible that similar positions might arise) is breaking the rules?

In simuls, especially large ones, I believe a common strategy is to do just this, to keep things simple so you don't have to play too many different openings. This applies tenfold in blindfold simluls. There is also the odd case of that magic trick where someone playing a simul where the players can't see each other can copy moves played by his opponents to ensure an overall 50% score, or something. Can't quite remember the point of that "magic" trick, but it is part of the overall "copying moves from another game" strategy, if that can be called a strategy.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

If you mean a player watching someone else's game and copying their moves, or even just deciding to analyse the moves being played in the other game because they've been played in the other game, then, yes, that is a similar rule infringement - both violate Rule 12.3 a. " During play the players are forbidden to make use of any ... sources of information ...". Of course, the chances of someone getting caught doing this are negligible.

Well, actually, there are stories of grandmasters doing this. There is a famous case of some Argentinian grandmasters playing in a match against the Soviet Union or something. Hopefully someone else will be able to fill in/correct the details. Can't remember where I read about this one.

More prosaically, I was surprised one time when in the opening in one tournament game, my opponent got up after a few moves and went to look at another board. Curious, I followed him and found that the same moves had been played there. The games diverged a few moves later, and this was only after 3-4 moves, so it's to be expected. I suspect that some people do see no problems with observing other games to see whether they are still in theory, but I wouldn't do that myself.

[Brian Valentine]

Are you thinking of the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal?

Spassky v Pinik, Keres v Najdorf and Geller v Panno. The stories of this simultaneous TN are that the Argentines had prepared an innovation and we'll never know if the Soviets were copying each other.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Are you thinking of the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal?

That's the one, yes. Thanks.

Found an interesting account of that, and the follow-up three years later, here:

http://www.chessbase.com/columns/column.asp?pid=164

[Ola Winfridsson]

Are you thinking of the 1955 Gothenburg Interzonal?

Spassky v Pinik, Keres v Najdorf and Geller v Panno. The stories of this simultaneous TN are that the Argentines had prepared an innovation and we'll never know if the Soviets were copying each other.

Actually, we do. In the book on the tournament Världschackturneringen Göteborg 1955 (World Chess Tournament, Gothenburg 1955) by GM Gideon Ståhlberg (who himself participated) two of the games, Geller-Panno and Keres-Najdorf, are annotated by the winners, and it also says that the third one, Spassky-Pilnik, followed Keres-Najdorf through to 22...Rxa2.

Geller writes the following to his 14.Bg3!: "It is of interest to note that in the games Keres-Najdord and Spassky-Pilnik, played concurrently, this variation was repeated up to Black's 13th move. However, events in this game [i.e. Geller-Panno] developed more rapidly, and consequently Pilnik and Najdorf - once they'd seen that 13...Ne5 met with 14.Bg3 - varied with 13...Kg7. However, in the end the also went on to lose."

Furthermore, in the Tidskrift för Schack (the Swedish equivalent of BCM) #4 - 1955, these games are given under the tongue in cheek heading "The same position three times - draw?!" (and then the players names were given as if it had been a consultation game!) with the following annotations to the games, which should throw some light on the issue:

"11.Nxe6!!
Geller sacrificed first, while Keres, who had his back to him, executed the same sacrifice a minute or so later, withouth having seen Geller's move. Spassky was placed in the middle and cautiously awaited developments by studying the adjacent demonstration boards. Then he also sacrificed! The Argentinians had indeed taken this sacrificial turn into account, but had considered it incorrect. However, considering White's advantage in development, such a sacrifice is rather natural. That it was dismissed as incorrect is most likely due to the fact that during such [joint] analysis sessions there's a lot of talking, pieces being moved very rapidly and too little real thinking. But doubts and suspicions began to set in also for the Argentinians, and as the Russians sat thinking or threw smiling glances at the demonstration boards, they started discussing amongst themselves.

[...]
13.Bb5!!
The point of the sacrificial combination, first found by Geller, and then by Keres.

13...Ne5
This was also part of the analysis [by the Argentinians].

14.Bg3
Once Geller had played this move, Najdorf and Pilnik started thinking, because they'd only reckoned with 14.0-0. For the first in the history of chess one sees three identical positions in one and the same round. Perhaps the Argentinians should have hazarded a draw offer here."

So it seems that Geller and Keres, independently of each other, found the correct continuation, while Spassky, by virtue of being able to await developments on the demonstration boards, followed a couple of moves behind.