The very latest International round up of English news.
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:26 pm
NickFaulks wrote:LawrenceCooper wrote:Not conveniently ignoring because I don't agree with it but accepting that the law should be followed.
So you're happy to ignore the "law" about players first being separated into score groups.
Not happy no, as I said above I don't agree with the law but I acknowledge its existence and would reluctantly be bound by it. Unless you interpret the FIDE laws (not mine) differently though
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook ... ew=article I don't see that an arbiter following the laws has a choice unless arbiting in a tournament where he has discretion to override if he sees fit. I speak as someone who sees myself as a coach, organiser and player well before being an arbiter so its only with reluctance that I accept the laws should be followed ahead of my own opinion.
e
In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
f For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games
shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
g
No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
-
NickFaulks
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Post
by NickFaulks » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:22 pm
LawrenceCooper wrote:the laws should be followed ahead of my own opinion.
e In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
f For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
g No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
I think your continual description of these clauses as "laws" is just wrong. They are general rules. You evidently interpret "in general" to mean that (e) is subservient to (f) and (g). I think it recognises that when you have an odd number of players in group it cannot apply. I don't think it means you must ignore it altogether if the colours don't work out nicely.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:40 pm
NickFaulks wrote:LawrenceCooper wrote:the laws should be followed ahead of my own opinion.
e In general, players are paired to others with the same score.
f For each player the difference between the number of black and the number of white games shall not be greater than 2 or less than –2.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
g No player shall receive the same colour three times in a row.
Each system may have exceptions to this rule in the last round of a tournament.
I think your continual description of these clauses as "laws" is just wrong. They are general rules. You evidently interpret "in general" to mean that (e) is subservient to (f) and (g). I think it recognises that when you have an odd number of players in group it cannot apply. I don't think it means you must ignore it altogether if the colours don't work out nicely.
I've never been sure of the difference between laws and rules but will take your word for which is correct in this case.
I'm quite prepared to accept that you have far more experience of FIDE than me though and that your interpretation may be closer to what they meant. My reading of them though are that "shall not" and "no player shall" are not discretionary and must be observed whereas "in general" is.
As I have already said my opinion is that the 7 and 7.5 should play but if I were an arbiter of the event I would feel duty bound to pair in accordance as per the quotes above. Otherwise I may run the risk of not pairing in accordance with FIDE rules and potentially jeopardising the event being rated and a potential knock on effect with norms.
-
NickFaulks
- Posts: 8453
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Post
by NickFaulks » Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:27 pm
LawrenceCooper wrote:My reading of them though are that "shall not" and "no player shall" are not discretionary and must be observed whereas "in general" is.
As often happens here, I think a legalistic interpretation is being put on individual scraps of the English language that was never intended by those who drafted them. Didn't the ECF once put an interpretation on the word "member" that no normal person could have imagined?
If the words "in general" had not been inserted in (e), how would you think you should handle groups with odd numbers of players. Saw some in half, perhaps?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
Alan Walton
- Posts: 1394
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
- Location: Oldham
Post
by Alan Walton » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:11 pm
Working for a bank the product T&Cs are written in plain English, so there is no ambiguity for both parties; there is a organisation which gives you there backing if they are written correctly
You assume FIDE would try and do the same, but I suspect that they were translated by a person not using English as their first language, hence these conflicts of opinion
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:15 pm
NickFaulks wrote:LawrenceCooper wrote:My reading of them though are that "shall not" and "no player shall" are not discretionary and must be observed whereas "in general" is.
As often happens here, I think a legalistic interpretation is being put on individual scraps of the English language that was never intended by those who drafted them. Didn't the ECF once put an interpretation on the word "member" that no normal person could have imagined?
If the words "in general" had not been inserted in (e), how would you think you should handle groups with odd numbers of players. Saw some in half, perhaps?
I've put forward what I believe to be a sensible reason for the pairing. The laws or rules seem to support that view. I'm not sure it's worth debating what effects removing words from the handbook would have on their meaning although it's not implausible that removing words could change the meaning.
The sentences about triple colour and +2 either white and blacks are clear enough, some might say black and white. I wasn't aware of the latter until today but even if we don't agree with it it's there for all to see.
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:24 pm
Back on the chess front, Nigel has more ammunition for his views on how stalemate should be scored.
-
Matt Mackenzie
- Posts: 5206
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Post
by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:01 pm
LawrenceCooper wrote:Back on the chess front, Nigel has more ammunition for his views on how stalemate should be scored.
Why?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
Matt Mackenzie
- Posts: 5206
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Post
by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:03 pm
I know Short's (completely incorrect) view on the topic - I meant, what happened today?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:31 pm
Matt Mackenzie wrote:I know Short's (completely incorrect) view on the topic - I meant, what happened today?
Stalemate with him having the extra material
-
Roger de Coverly
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Post
by Roger de Coverly » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:08 pm
LawrenceCooper wrote:
Stalemate with him having the extra material
If that isn't a draw with Black to move, a whole pile of endgame, middlegame and opening theory has to be rewritten. It might even make Black unplayable at sufficiently high skill levels.
-
Matt Mackenzie
- Posts: 5206
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Post
by Matt Mackenzie » Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:09 pm
I agree with Roger, its not too hyperbolic too state it would ruin chess for no good reason.
Frankly, its the sort of will-o-the-wisp gimcrack wheeze to "popularise" chess I would more associate with The Penguin.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:24 am
Jobava has halved out to ensure himself of at least 1st= on 8.5/10.
-
LawrenceCooper
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am
Post
by LawrenceCooper » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:14 pm
Nigel has won to finish on 8/10. A draw on board 2 will mean a share of second but if that is decisive then he'll share third.