Wesley So's recent forfeit

[Adam Cormier]

So in Round 9 of the US Championship, Super-GM Wesley So was forfeited for writing phrases like "You can do it, So" or "Use your time" on a separate piece of paper during a game losing several rating points (he is appealing).

Does anyone think this punishment is completely unproportional to the crime? Even if he was warned beforehand the arbiter is supposed to use his own common-sense when selecting a punishment.

Writing anecdotes to yourself is now an unforgivable method of cheating and shows disrespect for the rules of chess I suppose.

I have some follow-up questions based off this ruling (which may be reversed if So's appeal is successful):
-If I write "You can do it, Adam" before a game on a piece of paper that I can see during the game is that cheating and deserves forfeiture?
- What if I pretend to write things down (If I ever get a chance to play GM Akobian I'd definitely do this) is that considered distracting your opponent (even if you do it silently) and therefore you should be forfeited?

This ruling might follow the wording of the laws of FIDE but I highly doubt it follows the spirit of the rule. When someone writes down something that is so vague it could be about multiple different sports/events/scenarios does it really deserve such a harsh punishment? (by this I mean I can't see how this would help So play better chess than him just repeating these phrases in his head but it might have a special meaning to him, he might get nervous during games and calms himself down with these, if this were true would this give the punishment more legitimacy?)

A possible analogy: In tournament games where there is a TC that gives players a boost in time after a certain move, many players underline the move they need to get to or circle the number, is this really any different than writing, "Make 40 moves to get more time" I think the two are arguably equivalent and yet this ruling should make these forms of 'notes' illegal as they are being used to make sure you know when you get more time and don't flag.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

So in Round 9 of the US Championship, Super-GM Wesley So was forfeited for writing phrases like "You can do it, So" or "Use your time" on a separate piece of paper during a game losing several rating points (he is appealing).

Does anyone think this punishment is completely unproportional to the crime? Even if he was warned beforehand the arbiter is supposed to use his own common-sense when selecting a punishment.

Writing anecdotes to yourself is now an unforgivable method of cheating and shows disrespect for the rules of chess I suppose.

I have some follow-up questions based off this ruling (which may be reversed if So's appeal is successful):
-If I write "You can do it, Adam" before a game on a piece of paper that I can see during the game is that cheating and deserves forfeiture?
- What if I pretend to write things down (If I ever get a chance to play GM Akobian I'd definitely do this) is that considered distracting your opponent (even if you do it silently) and therefore you should be forfeited?

This ruling might follow the wording of the laws of FIDE but I highly doubt it follows the spirit of the rule. When someone writes down something that is so vague it could be about multiple different sports/events/scenarios does it really deserve such a harsh punishment? (by this I mean I can't see how this would help So play better chess than him just repeating these phrases in his head but it might have a special meaning to him, he might get nervous during games and calms himself down with these, if this were true would this give the punishment more legitimacy?)

A possible analogy: In tournament games where there is a TC that gives players a boost in time after a certain move, many players underline the move they need to get to or circle the number, is this really any different than writing, "Make 40 moves to get more time" I think the two are arguably equivalent and yet this ruling should make these forms of 'notes' illegal as they are being used to make sure you know when you get more time and don't flag.

I think your example of underlining move 40 is exactly spot on. There is no difference between the action of underlining the next time control (considered benign I think) and writing an equivalent note to oneself. I wonder what Guert Geisen would think of all this (i don't know if he still maintains that Arbiter's column - I haven't visited Chess Cafe since they went "for-pay". I have often seen players put ! or ? against their own move or an opponent's move to highlight what they felt was a turning point in the game. Of course, I don't play in such tournaments with FIDE anointed arbiters so I don't know what a "real" arbiter might say in that situation.

I understand that he was warned once (or twice?) about the practice and was forfeited after the warnings. As Nakamura said in the post-round interview, he only has himself to blame but it does rather put a blemish on the tournament to hand out such harsh punishment to one of the leaders. Some people are blaming his opponent - that is quite uncalled-for: the opponent may have complained that So was not following the instructions of the arbiter but the punishment was surely the sole judgement of the arbiter.

Considering the magnitude of the reaction to the zero-tolerance farce, I would expect a similar backlash from this too.

The obvious question then is "What would be an appropriate penalty?" - I would suggest losing 15 minutes (say) on the clock and a final (? or another final!?) warning that the next penalty is forfeiture. Perhaps the arbiter already warned So that the next occurrence would result in the forfeit and all of this discussion is moot because So is just his own worst enemy in this case?

late edit: more info at http://www.chess.com/news/breaking-w...n-round-9-9186

[Gordon Ritchie]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit---Astonishing

There are two layers to this issue as I see it. First, does the rule as interpreted by the arbiter make sense? I defy anyone to make the case that it is reasonable given that So was writing (I) on a piece of paper other than his scoresheet and (ii) only general admonitions to himself, of the sort every sport psychologist would recommend. In this case, I submit, the law is a complete ass.
Second, the rule is what it is, as interpreted by the experienced chief arbiter. Apparently, So was warned repeatedly to cease and desist. Therefore, the decision stands.'
Hopefully, the one good thing that will come of this debacle is a re-examination of the rule.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

So in Round 9 of the US Championship, Super-GM Wesley So was forfeited for writing phrases like "You can do it, So" or "Use your time" on a separate piece of paper during a game losing several rating points (he is appealing).

Does anyone think this punishment is completely unproportional to the crime? Even if he was warned beforehand the arbiter is supposed to use his own common-sense when selecting a punishment.

Writing anecdotes to yourself is now an unforgivable method of cheating and shows disrespect for the rules of chess I suppose.

I have some follow-up questions based off this ruling (which may be reversed if So's appeal is successful):
-If I write "You can do it, Adam" before a game on a piece of paper that I can see during the game is that cheating and deserves forfeiture?
- What if I pretend to write things down (If I ever get a chance to play GM Akobian I'd definitely do this) is that considered distracting your opponent (even if you do it silently) and therefore you should be forfeited?

This ruling might follow the wording of the laws of FIDE but I highly doubt it follows the spirit of the rule. When someone writes down something that is so vague it could be about multiple different sports/events/scenarios does it really deserve such a harsh punishment? (by this I mean I can't see how this would help So play better chess than him just repeating these phrases in his head but it might have a special meaning to him, he might get nervous during games and calms himself down with these, if this were true would this give the punishment more legitimacy?)

A possible analogy: In tournament games where there is a TC that gives players a boost in time after a certain move, many players underline the move they need to get to or circle the number, is this really any different than writing, "Make 40 moves to get more time" I think the two are arguably equivalent and yet this ruling should make these forms of 'notes' illegal as they are being used to make sure you know when you get more time and don't flag.

So he was not only writing but reading too, yeah? "no notes during the game" or whatever I cited the last time.

Underling "40" would fall in a "relevant data" category.

imho, a punishment is fair too: two yellows, one red. Other possibilities of increase/decrease time are jokes.

[Fred Harvey]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit---Astonishing

He was annoying his opponent.....that is the case!

[Gordon Gooding]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Hey Adam,

The way I see it after reading the other posts given so far on this issue, So was forfeited for violating a directive from the arbiter, regardless of what shape or form it was or how absurd it was. So had to abide with the admonition during play. He could protest 'safely' after his game was done. He chose to ignore the yellow cards, too bad. The punishment is harsh but So was warned.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

So he was not only writing but reading too, yeah? "no notes during the game" or whatever I cited the last time.

Underling "40" would fall in a "relevant data" category.

imho, a punishment is fair too: two yellows, one red. Other possibilities of increase/decrease time are jokes.

I do agree that since So had been warned twice he did deserve a punishment (even if I am against a rule if warned I stop).

However I think a penalty of 15 or 30 minutes is quite significant in a grandmaster game especially if they reach a complicated position. So I don't think it is a joke of a punishment.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

In an event of this stature you do NOT want TDs deciding games.

That said if the second warning included the nuclear option: "I will forfeit you if you do not desist" that gets exercised the third time out. If not he may be entitled to a lesser penalty.

You are not dealing with somebody who does not know the rules. So is a top GM making a living from chess at the highest level and he will be held to the rules and nobody should be shocked that this happened to him if he ignored warnings to desist.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

So in Round 9 of the US Championship, Super-GM Wesley So was forfeited for writing phrases like "You can do it, So" or "Use your time" on a separate piece of paper during a game losing several rating points (he is appealing).....

Apparently the FIDE rulebook has this hilarious rule:

"12.6 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever."

Oh, I'll bet the lawyers LOVE that rule!

Imagine if So, on appealing the decision, made this rule the center of his appeal. And if losing the appeal, So then decides to hire a lawyer and make a civil case out of it due to lost prize money. Akobian would have to 'prove' he was being annoyed.

This entire episode ruins what was a very good event, and gives organized chess another kick in the teeth. People outside of chess are going to look at this news story and say, "Oh, poor baby chess player, distracted by opponent writing down notes that weren't even analyzing the game. Wow, looks like the real men play poker, those guys put up with total garbage and just keep playing."

FIDE = Bad for chess.

[Brad Thomson]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

The rules are the rules, TDs are entitled to a certain amount of discretion, their decisions should be respected, and their is an appeals mechanism in place.

[Caleb Petersen]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Apparently the FIDE rulebook has this hilarious rule:

This entire episode ruins what was a very good event, and gives organized chess another kick in the teeth.
FIDE = Bad for chess.

The hard truth-after hearing about this it gave a bitter taste to the whole event, now it's kinda ruined, for So anyway. I think So could legitamately appeal, why? Because he was not writing on his scoresheet. One thing I thought of is that if he was warned not to write notes on his scoresheet during the game I think the appeal would work.

[Caleb Petersen]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Update-So is not appealing the result of the game (shockingly to me) but the loss of rating points....

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Say it isn't so, Wesley.

The TD has also erred in bringing chess into disrepute. A time penalty.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Say it isn't so, Wesley.

The TD has also erred in bringing chess into disrepute. A time penalty.

Wrong. Don't blame the TD for enforcing the rules. Wesley was given adequate warning, and chose to ignore the warnings. Rule 11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game.

The TD acted appropriately, gave warnings, consulted with other officials, then had the courage to act. Well done sir.

If you don't agree with a rule, petition to change it, don't blame the officials.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Well said, Bob!