Mobile Phones (and Grandmasters)

[Carl Hibbard]

On a point of fact, are the marks on D'Costa's score sheet really analytical notes? They are at moves 5 and 10, between the white and black moves. Looks to me as if they could be clock times. I recall from my long ago playing days that I used to note the times after every five moves as part of a futile effort to comtrol my zeitnot addiction.

Yes there are clock times at moves 5 and 10

[Nigel_Davies]

On a point of fact, are the marks on D'Costa's score sheet really analytical notes? They are at moves 5 and 10, between the white and black moves. Looks to me as if they could be clock times. I recall from my long ago playing days that I used to note the times after every five moves as part of a futile effort to control my zeitnot addiction.

My understanding is that any markings on a score sheet are outlawed, but obviously this is a stupid rule.

[Nigel_Davies]

My understanding is that any markings on a score sheet are outlawed, but obviously this is a stupid rule.

BTW, on the subject of rules, should that photo have been taken so far into the round? I thought they were allowed in the first 10 minutes.

[David Sedgwick]

My understanding is that any markings on a score sheet are outlawed, but obviously this is a stupid rule.

Nigel,

Article 12.3 of the Laws of Chess reads (with my emboldening):

"The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data."

[Nigel_Davies]

Nigel,

Article 12.3 of the Laws of Chess reads (with my emboldening):

"The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, the offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data."

So it's just the circling of move 40 that's the problem then?

[Ian Kingston]

So it's just the circling of move 40 that's the problem then?

Not in the opinion of International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen:

'I consider the marking of the time control as relevant data'

(see http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm, near the end, when asked whether it is allowed to mark the time control on the scoresheet).

[Nigel_Davies]

Not in the opinion of International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen:

'I consider the marking of the time control as relevant data'

(see http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm, near the end, when asked whether it is allowed to mark the time control on the scoresheet).

Thank goodness for that. I've spent the last year or so avoiding doing that because I was under the impression that it was an infraction.

[David Sedgwick]

Not in the opinion of International Arbiter Geurt Gijssen:

'I consider the marking of the time control as relevant data'

(see http://www.chesscafe.com/geurt/geurt.htm, near the end, when asked whether it is allowed to mark the time control on the scoresheet).

David Welch makes a similar comment at:
http://www.englishchess.org.uk/organisa ... _apr05.htm

I haven't yet examined whether this sort of thing changes in any way from 1st July 2009

[Ian Kingston]

I haven't yet examined whether this sort of thing changes in any way from 1st July 2009

The relevant Article has been renumbered (from 12.3 to 12.4) but is otherwise unchanged.

[JustinHorton]

I was wondering if anything has been said about this by either the arbiters, or by Lorin's captain. Was any protest lodged against the decision of the arbiter? (Please note I am not say one should have been, or inded that it should have - I'm just wondering, because if the Atticus report is reasonably accurate than it's hard to imagine that Lorin spent forty minutes away from the board because he was delighted.)

I don't think Nigel Davies was under any obligation to offer a draw, or concede the game if the arbiter didn't think it appropriate (although I don't understand what he mans by saying he was prepared to resign if the decision went against him, since the decision would have been that the game was over and you can't resign a game already finished). I'm also vaguely curious to know whether the arbiter was aware of - and took into account - the new FIDE wording and if they did, whether perhaps they interpreted it as meaning that a beep, as opposed to a ring, didn't count for a forfeit until July (as opposed to considering it to mean that a beep and a ring should never have been regarded as separate things). But surely everybody is entitled to ask for a ruling. If anybody thinks Nigel Davies did more than that, that's another thing but if they think that they should say so. What I'd want to know is whether Lorin's side did what they should have. But again, I'm not seeking to say they didn't: in the first place I wasn't there and in the second, it's been and gone. I'm just asking.

Funny thing, having taken a draconian position on mobiles earlier in the thread, this discussion has partly caused me to change my mind because I do think a beep because the battery runs low is not really the same thing as a phone ringing because somebody's left it on. I don't think everybody can really be expected to take the batteries out of their mobiles every time the play a game of chess. Not at the amateur level and not, therefore, at the level where professionals and amatuers co-exist. Big GM tournaments with secutiry and low numbers, different story.

I agree with wht Jonathan Bryant said above: the incident with the phone that was supposedly somebody else's phone seems to me on the face of it to be rather more serious from an ethical point of view.

[Nigel_Davies]

I was wondering if anything has been said about this by either the arbiters, or by Lorin's captain. Was any protest lodged against the decision of the arbiter? (Please note I am not say one should have been, or inded that it should have - I'm just wondering, because if the Atticus report is reasonably accurate than it's hard to imagine that Lorin spent forty minutes away from the board because he was delighted.)

Justin, I posted this on the 'Abusive Chess Club' thread:

"This one's a fairly mild bit of abuse compared with some of the other stuff one can find up there. In this article you can find little touches such as this: "And by the time the game resumed he was nearly 40 minutes behind on the clock. D’Costa eventually lost the game", which as with the entire article is an attempt to besmirch me by implying that I somehow gained an advantage during this thing. D'Costa was more than 40 minutes behind when I went to get the arbiter - my clock was running. He also had a terrible position. But this statement, plus the photo of the clock, attempts to imply that this was not the case."

[JustinHorton]

So I'm sure - what you're saying is, Lorin didn't in fact spend forty minutes away from the board and the Atticus report is not accurate?

On a different point, though relating to the same game - looking at Lorin's scoresheet, he presumably thought he was going to be awarded the game? I can't see any other obvious explanation of the marking at move fifteen...

[Jonathan Bryant]

I can's see any other obvious explanation of the marking at move fifteen...

Perhaps Justin but I've seen people make similar marks to remind themselves to record both sides times at that point.

Who knows.


Anyway,

somebody want to be big butch and brave and name the GM involved in the other incident? Regardless of the rights and wrongs of Nigel Davies' game it still seems to me somewhat unfair that he's coping all the flak on this thread.

[Nigel_Davies]

So I'm sure - what you're saying is, Lorin didn't in fact spend forty minutes away from the board and the Atticus report is not accurate?

On a different point, though relating to the same game - looking at Lorin's scoresheet, he presumably thought he was going to be awarded the game? I can't see any other obvious explanation of the marking at move fifteen...

Lorin was at the board when I left to get the arbiter (my phone beeped after black's 12th move), it was my move (the 13th would be my next) and my clock was running. So the picture of the scoresheet was taken when it was my move but the picture of the clock was taken AFTER my 13th. This little piece of trickery is being used to misrepresent the situation and make it sound like Lorin lost time on the clock.

The markings after move 15 were placed there, I believe, to write down the times at that point, just as he had after moves 5 and 10. But I think he should be careful with this kind of thing as there are some nitpickers who might want some draconian punishment for this together with arbiters who use their discretion in a rather extreme way. I'm actually thankful for the generally high standard of arbiters that we have in the UK, I've met some pretty damn awful ones on my travels.

[JustinHorton]

The markings at 15 look a little different to me than the ones at 5 and 10 but I accept they may very well be for the same purpose(and actually, looking more closely and perhaps paying the issue more attention than it merits, the one at 10 is not the same as the one at 5 anyway!). Not important.

On the general issue, I wonder if a lot of people don't realise that the alarm on your mobile can go off even when the mobile itself is turned off. I do think that penalising people who have taken precautions is not really what was intended when rules were created to penalise people who didn't. It's not as hard to turn off a phone as some people tend to think (though perhaps it helps that I worked for years as a librarian and therefore got accustomed to turning the thing off) but do we really want to default people who've done that?

Naturally that doesn't mean I don't think rules that exist shouldn't be applied: it's a question as to what rules should exist.

Anyhow, is anybody going to tell us all who the GM with somebody else's phone was?