Arbitration question

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
NickFaulks
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:03 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 pm
This is very important where, for example, after 40 pushes by black, an extra 30 minutes is added.
Is this approach still used? I thought ( hoped ) the lesson was learned that this is simply a bad idea.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18878
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:51 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:03 am

Is this approach still used? I thought ( hoped ) the lesson was learned that this is simply a bad idea.
Personally I don't think it satisfactory for clocks to show a misleading time remaining. Still it did gain me a easier point at the British when my opponent reached move 40 with a minute or two remaining and then went into thought, only to be surprised by my claim of a win when the time went to zero, rather than adding. He'd forgotten or overlooked that the weekend events are straight ninety minutes with increment rather than add an extra 30 when the 90 plus increments is up.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:41 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:03 am
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:35 pm
This is very important where, for example, after 40 pushes by black, an extra 30 minutes is added.
Is this approach still used? I thought ( hoped ) the lesson was learned that this is simply a bad idea.
It was still used at the Batumi Olympiad 2018 and there were problems in one game as a result. Considering the number of games played at an Olympiad, that is perhaps not a bad outcome.

I think you were present at the Rules Commission Meeting at the Olympiad. When the point was discussed, the platform were almost all in favour of using the move counter, but the floor were almost all against.

Until recently some FIDE events specified an increment "from Move 61". If you use that system and that wording, then you have to use the move counter.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:09 am

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:41 am
I think you were present at the Rules Commission Meeting at the Olympiad. When the point was discussed, the platform were almost all in favour of using the move counter, but the floor were almost all against.
'nuff said.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:47 pm

David > Until recently some FIDE events specified an increment "from Move 61". If you use that system and that wording, then you have to use the move counter.<

That was Kasparov's influence. He didn't like the aesthetics of repeating a position one in order to gain thinking time.
It was a very bad idea, the rate of play should NOT change in a game. It is too confusing. I realise all QPF do that, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Since DGT are used, surely there is no move counter? It is a push counter and the number of pushes cannot be displayed. The information is there, but inaccessible.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3959
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Arbitration question

Post by David Sedgwick » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:02 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:47 pm
Since DGT are used, surely there is no move counter? It is a push counter ...
I have long considered that point to be needlessly pedantic. It is a counter with the intended purpose of counting the number of moves.

When it will otherwise cause problems, I always instruct the players to press the clock once and once only after each move, so that the counter counts the number of moves correctly.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18878
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:28 pm

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:47 pm

Since DGT are used, surely there is no move counter? It is a push counter and the number of pushes cannot be displayed. The information is there, but inaccessible.

It's not that inaccessible, On the 2010 model someone just needs to press the # button to display it. It's on the left hand side. It ought to be clarified that if playing with no increment, or increment less than 30 seconds, that it was valid evidence in support of a 50 move claim.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:52 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:09 am
David Sedgwick wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:41 am
I think you were present at the Rules Commission Meeting at the Olympiad. When the point was discussed, the platform were almost all in favour of using the move counter, but the floor were almost all against.
'nuff said.
To be fair, you've missed out two other things that happened:
1. The platform said that two other Commissions they spoke too were also all in favour.
2. I spoke at great length, and with uncharacteristic fluidity, explaining why it was a bad idea.

I have no idea what the impact of 2 was on the resulting floor vote. More likely, I expect, was that my oration was unnecessary and the floor would always have voted that way.
Last edited by Alex Holowczak on Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 9085
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Alex Holowczak » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:53 pm

David Sedgwick wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:02 pm
Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 7:47 pm
Since DGT are used, surely there is no move counter? It is a push counter ...
I have long considered that point to be needlessly pedantic.
It's always worth calling it a move counter in the relevant meetings though, so you can cross Stewart's mentioning this point off the FIDE Congress Bingo Card. :P

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2490
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Ian Thompson » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:39 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:28 pm
It's not that inaccessible, On the 2010 model someone just needs to press the # button to display it. It's on the left hand side.
There's nothing in the rules, as far as I'm aware, expressly allowing or prohibiting a player from pressing this button. So what, if anything, should an arbiter do if a player does press it while it's his move?

Mike Gunn
Posts: 766
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Mike Gunn » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:00 am

"6.12.1

Screens, monitors, or demonstration boards showing the current position on the chessboard, the moves and the number of moves made/completed, and clocks which also show the number of moves, are allowed in the playing hall.

6.12.2

The player may not make a claim relying only on information shown in this manner."

So you can press the button, but not use the information you see?

NickFaulks
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:38 am

Mike Gunn wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:00 am
The player may not make a claim relying only on information shown in this manner."

So you can press the button, but not use the information you see?
Yes, you can use it for comfort that the information on your scoresheet is correct. I, for one, would benefit from that.
Last edited by NickFaulks on Sun Sep 15, 2019 8:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:53 am

Ian >There's nothing in the rules, as far as I'm aware, expressly allowing or prohibiting a player from pressing this button. So what, if anything, should an arbiter do if a player does press it while it's his move?<

I am always very wary of allowing players to manipulate the clock in any way during play. The players could agree to ask the arbiter to push the button to determine the number of times the lever has been pushed

Mike >So you can press the button, but not use the information you see?,
That is not correct. You can decide to believe the information is correct and that thus, for example, you have one more move to make before the time control. Now you make that move and, next time it is your move, sit back for a long time. Your clock time runs out. Your opponent says that you have made only 39 moves. The arbiter establishes this is correct. You exclaim, 'But the clock showed 40!' The arbiter refers you to 6.12.2

I tried hard to get DGT to provide the option of displaying the number of pushes throughout, but failed.

I originally wrote 6.12. 1 and 2 when demonstration boards were still operated by humans. Thus, I was guarding against human error. No attempt has been made to amend these Laws, as far as I know.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18878
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:56 am

NickFaulks wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:38 am

Yes, use can use it for comfort that the information on your scoresheet is correct. I, for one, would benefit from that.
10 second and 5 second increments where you don't have to keep score with less than five minutes remaining are becoming normal outside "international" events. You've kept score at least until a position has appeared where a fifty move claim might eventually be possible. As discussed in another thread two Bishops versus a Knight perhaps. Can you use the clock counter in connection with your scoresheet to establish that at least fifty moves have elapsed since the last pawn move or capture?

Mike Gunn
Posts: 766
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: Arbitration question

Post by Mike Gunn » Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:43 am

Probably not (see 6.12.2. I think you have to rely on your scoresheet.

Post Reply