FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3243
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Mon Jan 06, 2020 11:13 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:55 pm
- but not if written on a separate piece of paper.
“It’s a different bit of paper not the scoresheet so I can make notes on it” was part of Wesley So’s defence IIRC

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:14 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 7:02 pm
The episode was discussed on here at viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7319.

I agree with the comments of Ian Thompson and Nick Faulks on Page 2.
Absolutely, good points by both.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:43 pm

Nick Grey wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:51 pm
Never shake hands. May be taken to be I resign, I agree a draw, or I accept your resignation.
Luckily I have never yet come across an instance where two players shook hands and then argued as to what the shaking of hands meant. I've heard it happens, though. I accept that chess players are quite capable of being weird and doing weird things.
Nick Grey wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:51 pm
I think I ought not to knock over my king to resign anymore. Especially when I'm on a live board.
Well, it's usually resignation. (Especially if its hurled across the room.) Someone can always sort out the live board's misapprehension later. Of course it may be just being clumsy, we've all seen this, but only nine year olds would try to claim this as a resignation. Unless someone's actually seen an adult being a queen down arguing that his opponent resigned instead of accidentally knocking over his king whilst reaching for his bishop. Or his tea. Or scratching his nose.
Nick Grey wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:51 pm
I note my blood sugars readings and or insulin units injected - where else can I record as I can't go back to a bag?
I think that one is easy. An arbiter is required under the Laws to
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 wrote:take special measures in the interests of disabled players and those who need medical attention,
I think we'll allow insulin readings to be written on the scoresheet as a special measure. Otherwise the insurance rates might rocket after the bodies piled up.

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:55 pm

The original post concerned two players simultaneously resigning.

However, most of the subsequent comments concern someone's off hand recollection of their young daughter writing "resigns" on the score-sheet.

Of course, this is an instance the Immutable Law of the Forum. No one ever posts on topic.

It should astonish me that anyone would consider writing "resigns" on their scoresheet to be anything but a resignation, but there we are.

Chess players are not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can ever suppose. "JBS Haldane"

AndrewBanks
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 14, 2019 7:01 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by AndrewBanks » Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:28 pm

Sorry Paul ;-)

Although I should reiterate she wrote "0-1" not "resigns"... and that was (ahem) corrected (/ahem) to 1/2 - 1/2

But she won't do that again...

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:59 pm

It's alright. She's forgiven. Kids usually are. It's the supposed grown ups... @_@

Nick Grey
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Nick Grey » Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:30 pm

Paul - that your interesting case is appears to be a junior event means I ought not have commented.

I think the correct actions would have been to laugh, say you cannot both resign, stop the clocks and ask if they both want to continue. But seems other things happened. Explaining the right etiquette is hard.

There are of course local rules to be considered. My last game of 2019 was in a pub where juniors have to leave the bar area by 9pm. We use that to analyse games. We finished at 810 so I was quite keen to analyse with him and his father and offering to buy them both drinks as is custom. We agreed that he had a better way to continue rather than accept a draw offer but also a bit earlier I had a better continuation as analysed by Botvinnik.

At 9 we all went back upstairs with four games still in progress including his younger brother,

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3450
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Paul McKeown » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:12 am

Nick Grey wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Paul - that your interesting case is appears to be a junior event means I ought not have commented.
It was an adult's event. Some behave more foolishly than the children.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5885
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by NickFaulks » Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:44 am

Paul McKeown wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:43 pm
Luckily I have never yet come across an instance where two players shook hands and then argued as to what the shaking of hands meant.
It happened to me. My opponent's flag fell, we shook hands and he filled out the slip to say 0-1 ( he was White ) and handed it in. A few minutes later he informed the arbiting team that he had in fact given checkmate with his final move and the result should be reversed. Which they did!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:49 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:44 am
Paul McKeown wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:43 pm
Luckily I have never yet come across an instance where two players shook hands and then argued as to what the shaking of hands meant.
It happened to me. My opponent's flag fell, we shook hands and he filled out the slip to say 0-1 ( he was White ) and handed it in. A few minutes later he informed the arbiting team that he had in fact given checkmate with his final move and the result should be reversed. Which they did!
Well, I suppose that - if he had in fact given checkmate with his final move before [Rumens/Mabbs] his flag fell - that ended the game there and then. What the later shaking of hands indicated would therefore have been irrelevant. Or am I missing something?

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4002
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:48 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:49 pm
NickFaulks wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:44 am
Paul McKeown wrote:
Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:43 pm
Luckily I have never yet come across an instance where two players shook hands and then argued as to what the shaking of hands meant.
It happened to me. My opponent's flag fell, we shook hands and he filled out the slip to say 0-1 ( he was White ) and handed it in. A few minutes later he informed the arbiting team that he had in fact given checkmate with his final move and the result should be reversed. Which they did!
Well, I suppose that - if he had in fact given checkmate with his final move before [Rumens/Mabbs] his flag fell - that ended the game there and then. What the later shaking of hands indicated would therefore have been irrelevant. Or am I missing something?
You may be.

In Rumens v Mabbs, there was no dispute that the final move was checkmate.

In Nick's case, after he had left the board thinking that he had won, his opponent and the arbiting team subsequently acted as described.

If this is the episode which I think it is, Nick's opponent did make one entirely accurate allegation. He accused Stewart Reuben of not being a Christian.

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Roger Lancaster » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:37 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:48 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:49 pm
NickFaulks wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:44 am

It happened to me. My opponent's flag fell, we shook hands and he filled out the slip to say 0-1 ( he was White ) and handed it in. A few minutes later he informed the arbiting team that he had in fact given checkmate with his final move and the result should be reversed. Which they did!
Well, I suppose that - if he had in fact given checkmate with his final move before [Rumens/Mabbs] his flag fell - that ended the game there and then. What the later shaking of hands indicated would therefore have been irrelevant. Or am I missing something?
You may be.

In Rumens v Mabbs, there was no dispute that the final move was checkmate.

In Nick's case, after he had left the board thinking that he had won, his opponent and the arbiting team subsequently acted as described.

If this is the episode which I think it is, Nick's opponent did make one entirely accurate allegation. He accused Stewart Reuben of not being a Christian.
Assuming the game was standard play, in which case there would be a record of the moves, I imagine the arbiters felt impelled to reproduce the moves on the opponent's scoresheet to see if the final move was, in fact, checkmate. Question that next crosses my mind is, if the final move recorded was checkmate, would the arbiters then have requested Nick's scoresheet to ensure that they tallied?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18993
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:57 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:37 pm
Assuming the game was standard play, in which case there would be a record of the moves
That wouldn't necessarily be so unless there was an increment of at least 30 seconds, or with a shorter or no increment, that the remaining time was at least 5 minutes for the player not having a flagfall.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 4002
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:15 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:37 pm
Assuming the game was standard play, in which case there would be a record of the moves, I imagine the arbiters felt impelled to reproduce the moves on the opponent's scoresheet to see if the final move was, in fact, checkmate. Question that next crosses my mind is, if the final move recorded was checkmate, would the arbiters then have requested Nick's scoresheet to ensure that they tallied?
I should have said that it was not Standardplay.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 7796
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Post by JustinHorton » Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:22 pm

That does change it a bit. Were the pieces back in the starting position (or in the box) when the claim was made?
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Post Reply