Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
FIDE have published the Appeal verdicts to both the Carlsen game and Grishuk's threefold claim.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... iyadh.html
I'm marginally surprised there isn't an "arbiter edition" of the various game viewing pieces of software. This would flag up where positions had been repeated to enable instant validation or rejection of threefold claims.
http://www.fide.com/component/content/a ... iyadh.html
I'm marginally surprised there isn't an "arbiter edition" of the various game viewing pieces of software. This would flag up where positions had been repeated to enable instant validation or rejection of threefold claims.
-
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
I think Malcolm is wrong here - or, at least, trying to implement a fundamental change in the game. It is currently accepted that ( unlike, say, a football referee's decision to award a penalty ), a player does have the right to challenge a decision made during a game up to the point when the result is agreed.Appeals Committee wrote:Additionally, from a sporting point of view, Mr Pein felt mistakes by arbiters should be part of the game as they are in other sports and should not be corrected at the end of the game.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
Sorry for stating the obvious, but I find very odd to appoint to the appeal committee someone holding Michael's view as expressed above; I mean, wouldn't the same consideration apply to any appeal following any arbiter's decision during the game, resulting in all appeals systematically declined on this basis alone?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:39 pmI think Malcolm is wrong here - or, at least, trying to implement a fundamental change in the game. It is currently accepted that ( unlike, say, a football referee's decision to award a penalty ), a player does have the right to challenge a decision made during a game up to the point when the result is agreed.Appeals Committee wrote:Additionally, from a sporting point of view, Mr Pein felt mistakes by arbiters should be part of the game as they are in other sports and should not be corrected at the end of the game.
-
- Posts: 336
- Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:37 pm
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
Is claiming the game a move? Do you have to press the clock to complete the move? Of course, if it isn't a move, Inarkiev didn't need to claim the game because of an illegal move by Carlsen. His position was that Carlsen was in check and had no legal move - checkmate!Appeals Committee wrote:Effectively what GM Inarkiev’s claim is that in the position after 27…Ne3+, GM
Carlsen’s only legal move is to claim the game.
-
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
Appeals Committees can decide on all sorts of disputes (e.g. matters of fact) not just on whether an Arbiter's decision is correct or not. I think there is a logic to Malcolm's position, based on the integrity of a sporting event. Football matches are the obvious parallel where you wouldn't want to revisit every refereeing decision made in the game so referee's decisions stand (where they relate to the result of the game). However, as chess is rather different to football (less involvement of the official in the game) I'm not sure I'm convinced by this argument.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
There is a fundamental difference in this case: in football most decisions do no more than confer a tactical advantage at a particular point of the game (eg penalty) - slightly more than that for eg a sending off.
In this case the arbiter is actually deciding the result of the game - I don't think a referee can ever say "you did such and such so I'm awarding the game to the other side". Even a goal always requires a ball to be (deemed) to have gone between the posts.
In this case the arbiter is actually deciding the result of the game - I don't think a referee can ever say "you did such and such so I'm awarding the game to the other side". Even a goal always requires a ball to be (deemed) to have gone between the posts.
-
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 6:46 am
-
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
Only some other sports. I suspect there are plenty of sports where players can challenge the officials' decisions - tennis. cricket and snooker, for example. Some football managers have also suggested they should be able to as well.Appeals Committee wrote:Additionally, from a sporting point of view, Mr Pein felt mistakes by arbiters should be part of the game as they are in other sports and should not be corrected at the end of the game.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
In general, I think there are two types of error a referee, umpire, or arbiter can make.
The first is a judgement error. You think a batsman is out lbw, but actually the ball pitched outside leg stump. You think a player is on-side, but actually there is only one opposition player between the striker and the goal. These mistakes happen all the time, and can be forgiven to some extent. Recently, some sports have introduced challenge systems where players or coaches disagree with the judgement of the official. That's all fine and normal.
The second is a Law error. You think a batsman is out lbw, because you don't know that the batsman can't be out lbw if the ball pitches outside leg stump. You think a player is on-side because you don't know that only one opposition player being between the striker and the goal is actually off-side. These mistakes are of a different degree of severity, and can often put an official on the chopping block.
The way that governing bodies handle these different types of error is interesting. Sean Hewitt would sometimes tell the tale of an FA Cup tie, in one of the very early rounds. A player was sent off, and the game went to a penalty shoot out. In those circumstances, with 11 v 10, the team with 11 has to choose a player who cannot take part in the penalty competition. They decided to choose their goalkeeper, and the referee accepted this. However, the referee mis-applied the Law, because the referee should have prevented the goalkeeper from being in goal for the opposition's kicks - because by being in goal, he was taking part in the penalty competition. Critically, the wording didn't say "take a penalty", it said "taking part in the penalty competition", or something like that. The team with 11 on the pitch won the shoot out. The team with 10 appealed the result, on the grounds that the referee got the Law wrong. The FA ordered the game be replayed. The FA would not have done this if the team with 10 appealed the red card, on the grounds that the referee's judgement was wrong.
By analogy, the draw by repetition case is to me the arbiter not applying the Law correctly, as opposed to an error of judgement. An error of judgement might be the typical thing you get in a children's tournament, where the arbiter makes a judgement ruling based on one player saying "He touched a Rook!" and the other saying "No I didn't!" I think if the arbiter can be shown to have applied the Law incorrectly, or worse not known what the Law was, then I think the Appeals Committee would be right to award the draw in this case.
The first is a judgement error. You think a batsman is out lbw, but actually the ball pitched outside leg stump. You think a player is on-side, but actually there is only one opposition player between the striker and the goal. These mistakes happen all the time, and can be forgiven to some extent. Recently, some sports have introduced challenge systems where players or coaches disagree with the judgement of the official. That's all fine and normal.
The second is a Law error. You think a batsman is out lbw, because you don't know that the batsman can't be out lbw if the ball pitches outside leg stump. You think a player is on-side because you don't know that only one opposition player being between the striker and the goal is actually off-side. These mistakes are of a different degree of severity, and can often put an official on the chopping block.
The way that governing bodies handle these different types of error is interesting. Sean Hewitt would sometimes tell the tale of an FA Cup tie, in one of the very early rounds. A player was sent off, and the game went to a penalty shoot out. In those circumstances, with 11 v 10, the team with 11 has to choose a player who cannot take part in the penalty competition. They decided to choose their goalkeeper, and the referee accepted this. However, the referee mis-applied the Law, because the referee should have prevented the goalkeeper from being in goal for the opposition's kicks - because by being in goal, he was taking part in the penalty competition. Critically, the wording didn't say "take a penalty", it said "taking part in the penalty competition", or something like that. The team with 11 on the pitch won the shoot out. The team with 10 appealed the result, on the grounds that the referee got the Law wrong. The FA ordered the game be replayed. The FA would not have done this if the team with 10 appealed the red card, on the grounds that the referee's judgement was wrong.
By analogy, the draw by repetition case is to me the arbiter not applying the Law correctly, as opposed to an error of judgement. An error of judgement might be the typical thing you get in a children's tournament, where the arbiter makes a judgement ruling based on one player saying "He touched a Rook!" and the other saying "No I didn't!" I think if the arbiter can be shown to have applied the Law incorrectly, or worse not known what the Law was, then I think the Appeals Committee would be right to award the draw in this case.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
I agree. I suspect the trend is to towards allowing appeals where technology can assist and where the risk of holding up play is limited.Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:27 pmOnly some other sports. I suspect there are plenty of sports where players can challenge the officials' decisions - tennis. cricket and snooker, for example. Some football managers have also suggested they should be able to as well.Appeals Committee wrote:Additionally, from a sporting point of view, Mr Pein felt mistakes by arbiters should be part of the game as they are in other sports and should not be corrected at the end of the game.
I wonder: would it not be possible (with a change in the Laws) to process repetition claims like two-minute draw claims by postponing the decision until later, when it can more conveniently be made?
There's something else I'm curious about. The Appeal decision text states:
But wasn't Grischuk at liberty to appeal later? The tournament regulations state:Appeal decision text wrote:Mr Pein felt GM Grischuk had made an error by not insisting that he have access to the computer records although of course he is entitled to expect an arbiter to be competent enough to make the right decision.
Tournament regulations wrote:13.2 All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 15 minutes after the relevant playing session, or the particular infringement complained against.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
What would be the advantage of that?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:07 pmI wonder: would it not be possible (with a change in the Laws) to process repetition claims like two-minute draw claims by postponing the decision until later, when it can more conveniently be made?
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
It wouldn't hold up play so much and there'd be less chance - with more time available and with the players able to assist - of getting the decision wrong (as happened in the Grischuk-Mamedyarov game). It may also reduce the possibility of a player deliberately making a false claim to gain thinking time.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:51 pmWhat would be the advantage of that?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:07 pmI wonder: would it not be possible (with a change in the Laws) to process repetition claims like two-minute draw claims by postponing the decision until later, when it can more conveniently be made?
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
The action considered best practice in this situation would be for the arbiter to invite the players over to the computer operating the liveboards. If you do that, then does that satisfy both of your points anyway?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:14 pmIt wouldn't hold up play so much and there'd be less chance (with more time available and with the players able to assist) of getting the decision wrong (as happened in the Grischuk-Mamedyarov game). It may also reduce the possibility of a player deliberately making a false claim to gain thinking time.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:51 pmWhat would be the advantage of that?Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:07 pmI wonder: would it not be possible (with a change in the Laws) to process repetition claims like two-minute draw claims by postponing the decision until later, when it can more conveniently be made?
The Law suggests that the players should do this:
"11.11 Both players must assist the arbiter in any situation requiring reconstruction of the game, including draw claims."
Although in typical fashion, it is only considering the manual draw by repetition claim investigation process, rather than one with liveboards ready.
I think this practice is pretty standard amongst British arbiters - in addition to myself, I've seen David Sedgwick and Matthew Carr using this process to make decisions correctly on repetition claims in the past.
So perhaps the problem isn't the Law, but with the process the arbiter used to handle the claim?
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 1:37 am
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
Though current "best practice" allows the game to be interrupted and could be used by a player to gain thinking time. This is hardly ideal for a rapid or blitz game. I'm suggesting something different to avoid these issues.
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Penalty for illegal move: 2018 FIDE revision
It's not an unreasonable suggestion. I don't think that would only be a problem for Rapid or Blitz only. I think it's a problem for when players are short of time in general.Angus French wrote: ↑Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:30 pmThough current "best practice" allows the game to be interrupted and could be used by a player to gain thinking time. This is hardly ideal for a rapid or blitz game. I'm suggesting something different to avoid these issues.
But we've probably strayed from the topic of illegal moves.