Page 5 of 5

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:28 pm
by Roger Lancaster
David Sedgwick wrote:
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.
That's interesting - neither in blitz nor in rapidplay [nor in standard game finishes in the circumstances described by RDC] is there any obligation to record moves so how, if it's not an indiscreet question, did the arbiters manage to ascertain whether the last move really delivered checkmate? They could, for example, have looked at what purported to be the final position on the board but what guarantee would there be that the position hadn't been altered?

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:17 pm
by Nick Grey
As it was an ungraded and unrated game, and I was feeling kindly disposed, I scored it 0.5 - 0.5.

Perhaps Paul -FIDE Laws not applicable in this instance. But an interesting thread.

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:29 pm
by Paul McKeown
Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:17 pm
As it was an ungraded and unrated game, and I was feeling kindly disposed, I scored it 0.5 - 0.5.

Perhaps Paul -FIDE Laws not applicable in this instance. But an interesting thread.
I think that rather misses the point of posting, which was to point out a lacuna in the Laws.

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:46 pm
by Nick Grey
As an arbiter make a decision.
The player to make the move ought to be the one that resigned first.
Ensure you have appeal committee for your tournaments.

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:00 am
by NickFaulks
JustinHorton wrote:
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?
Long set up for the next round.

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 5:04 am
by Paul McKeown
Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:46 pm
As an arbiter make a decision.
I did. as noted right at the start.
Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:46 pm
The player to make the move ought to be the one that resigned first.
It has been suggested already, but I don't see the logic.

I believe the result of the game is correctly 0 - 0, as both players resigned.

One of the points of the OP was to get informed views as to whether my view corresponds to that of senior colleagues. The other point was to suggest for those senior colleagues who are involved with the setting of the Laws that this might be a point that could helpfully be drafted more securely. My proposed redraft was provided right at the start.
Nick Grey wrote:
Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:46 pm
Ensure you have appeal committee for your tournaments.
Depends on the tournament. For some, it is too much mucking about for the significance of the tournament, in which case the CA's writ is final.

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:05 am
by JustinHorton
NickFaulks wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:00 am
JustinHorton wrote:
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?
Long set up for the next round.
Curiouser and curiouser. So on what basis was the decision made?

Re: FIDE Laws - An Interesting Case

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:47 pm
by Nick Grey
0-0 fine. Charge 100 for an appeal. 1,000,000 if for the world championship.

Sorry but badly drafted regulations on education funding issued on 19/12/19 have led to a correction issued 8/1/20. Plus a meeting with them on 13/1/20. Our work will have our cabinet members approval by 13/1/20 lunchtime.