Page 8 of 21

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 3:53 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Thanks.
Ramadan cup is underway (whose round typically occur about one hour after sunset) .
Yesterday, Black had a lost position and decided to resign, but in his time he told something to his opponent and walked to eat sweets and drink water. Upon returning, he made a move and now his opponent was wasting time.
Black had written the results on the match card and gave it to White to sign it. Then Black took back the match card and placed it beneath his hands.
I told Black to sign and go, otherwise I will exclude him from the tournament table.
After the chief arbiter came and put me aside, I told her the match card is signed. She went to them and saw the match card and said something to them.
I then told the players the next time you annoy the arbiter, I know what to do with you
Was I right?

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon May 20, 2019 1:32 am
by Stewart Reuben
I don't understand what you have written.

If a player irritates an arbiter so, he should be expelled from the tournament. His entry should be refused for future events. If the organiser, or senior arbiter won't back you, then you should consider your position.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
What would be the ruling if White's clock fell after Qxf6 in

?
The time control was 15+5

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:15 pm
by Roger Lancaster
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm
What would be the ruling if White's clock fell after Qxf6
Black has sufficient material that, given sufficiently incompetent play by White, Black could still win. Therefore the arbiter would award the game to Black. (That assumes that White hadn't, before his flag fell, claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent could not win by normal means).

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:43 pm
by David Sedgwick
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:15 pm
Black has sufficient material that, given sufficiently incompetent play by White, Black could still win. Therefore the arbiter would award the game to Black. (That assumes that White hadn't, before his flag fell, claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent could not win by normal means).
No such claim would have been possible, Roger
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm
The time control was 15+5

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:36 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
I thought that since the were forced moves leading to mate, the game would be drawn

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:55 pm
by Ian Thompson
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:36 pm
I thought that since the were forced moves leading to mate, the game would be drawn
There aren't forced moves leading to mate. Just because White has mate in 1 (after Qxf6) doesn't mean he has to play it. If he played the worst possible moves on the board he could lose all 3 of his pieces in the next 3 moves.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:35 am
by soheil_hooshdaran
Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:55 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:36 pm
I thought that since the were forced moves leading to mate, the game would be drawn
There aren't forced moves leading to mate. Just because White has mate in 1 (after Qxf6) doesn't mean he has to play it. If he played the worst possible moves on the board he could lose all 3 of his pieces in the next 3 moves.
How?

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:45 am
by Richard Bates
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:35 am
Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:55 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:36 pm
I thought that since the were forced moves leading to mate, the game would be drawn
There aren't forced moves leading to mate. Just because White has mate in 1 (after Qxf6) doesn't mean he has to play it. If he played the worst possible moves on the board he could lose all 3 of his pieces in the next 3 moves.
How?
1...kg4 2. Qf5+! kxf5 3.Re6! Kxe6 4. Bd7+!

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:59 am
by Roger Lancaster
David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:43 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:15 pm
Black has sufficient material that, given sufficiently incompetent play by White, Black could still win. Therefore the arbiter would award the game to Black. (That assumes that White hadn't, before his flag fell, claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent could not win by normal means).
No such claim would have been possible, Roger
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm
The time control was 15+5
Sorry, David, my mistake. Arbiter awards game to Black, full stop.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:45 pm
by Brian Towers
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:59 am
David Sedgwick wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:43 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:15 pm
Black has sufficient material that, given sufficiently incompetent play by White, Black could still win. Therefore the arbiter would award the game to Black. (That assumes that White hadn't, before his flag fell, claimed a draw on the basis that his opponent could not win by normal means).
No such claim would have been possible, Roger
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm
The time control was 15+5
Sorry, David, my mistake. Arbiter awards game to Black, full stop.
Roger, you should also note that even if there were no increment Quickplay Finish rules are not the default.
FIDE Laws of Chess 2018 wrote:III.2.1 The Guidelines below concerning the final period of the game including Quickplay Finishes, shall only be used at an event if their use has been announced beforehand

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:51 pm
by Stewart Reuben
I doubt QPF will be in the next edition of the Laws. Only with Makro's help did it stay there this time.
Geurt Gijssen thinks it better to flail around with king and knight v king and bishop until one flag drops. Mind you, he has no say any more either.

MORE INTERESTINGLY: I thought the tiebreak rules in the cricket made some of the chess ones look sensible.

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:58 am
by Joey Stewart
Although I mildly dislike increments I would happily take them just to stop that sort of internet troll behaviour translating to real life - nothing better then to screw talentless clowns out of getting an unjust win on time

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:56 pm
by John McKenna
Richard Bates wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:45 am
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 4:35 am
Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:55 pm

There aren't forced moves leading to mate. Just because White has mate in 1 (after Qxf6) doesn't mean he has to play it. If he played the worst possible moves on the board he could lose all 3 of his pieces in the next 3 moves.
How?
1...kg4 2. Qf5+! kxf5 3.Re6! Kxe6 4. Bd7+!
Those three moves by White are even more unbelievable than Stokes scoring a six with two hits!!

Owzat!?

Re: Arbitration question

Posted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:36 am
by soheil_hooshdaran
Sorry, what does
" It is important that the
arbiter does not mislead the player, nor advise him, nor advance any further" mean in the interpretation of 11.9?