Wesley So's recent forfeit

[Nicolas Haynes]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

In my opinion what So was writing probably wasn't the most useful or specific advice in the world. However what if he had started writing lines of analysis down (or say even drawing a diagram of the chess board), or stuff like "don't forget about the discovered check on my king" or "avoid the grunfeld opening" or whatever.

Probably most people would agree a player shouldn't write stuff like this down. I'm not bringing up these examples to make a straw man argument, I'm simply pointing out that there are probably some things that a player could write or draw on a piece of paper that might give them an unfair advantage over their opponent, so in a general sense I understand why this rule is in place.

I believe the applicable rule states

"11.3 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (...) The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty."

Now, some may argue that common sense should apply, and maybe the rule should only state that you can't make use of any notes if they might benefit or help you in your game. In other words, if you're simply sitting there writing down the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby or a grocery list, who cares, because it probably won't help you in your game.

I don't think the rule can or should specify that though, because that would lead to many arguments over interpretation and what is and what is not an unfair advantage in a game. To me, writing down what So wrote down on a piece of paper probably wouldn't help much or at all. It might help him more than me though, and however vague, it is advice in regards to how he wants to play.

The first part of the rule as it is written is fairly clear, it doesn't appear to say anything about the content making a difference, it just states "During play the players are forbidden to use any notes..." It doesn't say that the content of those notes is of any relevance. The problem if anything is that the punishment part of the rule is too vague, and in this case the punishment seemed excessive.

So posted on facebook an apology that stated "I'm sorry, I didn't know it was against the rules".... I really have to question this from what I had read. Apparently Tony Rich had warned him twice already in the same tournament, going as far as making him cross out the notes during So's game against Shankland. If you read this article
http://www.chess.com/news/breaking-w...n-round-9-9186

It also states that Susan Polgar and Ray Robson had told So more than once not to do it. It's a bit hard to believe he didn't know about the rule.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

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.

Article 12.2b the arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. Having games played is the most desirable result for such an important event. So breaking rules 11.3 and 11.5 were minor and should get a time penalty as per 13.9c or b. It was stupid but not like cheating. If still distracts opponent after time penalty than a forfeit. It's a graduated response. But then, this is in the US where they shoot people for a broken headlight, playing with a toy gun, stealing a cigar, etc.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Now, some may argue that common sense should apply, and maybe the rule should only state that you can't make use of any notes if they might benefit or help you in your game. In other words, if you're simply sitting there writing down the lyrics to Eleanor Rigby or a grocery list, who cares, because it probably won't help you in your game.

If someone is writing down a grocery list it could be a mnemonic device.

[Nicolas Haynes]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

This proves my point, if you made it discretionary to the TD what the player can and cannot write down (beyond filling out the scoresheet, as it was intended), it's always going to be open to interpretation what is and is not beneficial to a player. Tom's point is valid, it would probably be easy to employ some sort of menumonic device, acronym, code, whatever to make whatever is being write down appear innocuous, when it is not.

They should either abolish the rule (which would probably be a bad idea), or have it extremely simple, like the player can fill in the fields in the scoresheet with the intended information, and nothing else. Problem solved. If you're playing in a chess tournament, you're playing in a chess tournament, there is no reason to be writing other stuff down at the same time.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Article 12.2b the arbiter shall act in the best interest of the competition. Having games played is the most desirable result for such an important event. So breaking rules 11.3 and 11.5 were minor and should get a time penalty as per 13.9c or b. It was stupid but not like cheating. If still distracts opponent after time penalty than a forfeit. It's a graduated response. But then, this is in the US where they shoot people for a broken headlight, playing with a toy gun, stealing a cigar, etc.

Good point about the rules, Erik. Not only does FIDE have rules that are absolutely ambiguous, but they have rules that contradict each other. The one thing we should all agree on is that the TD did have room for interpretation here. He did not HAVE to forfeit the game. Even Akobian was shocked at this turn of events, according to his tweets afterward.

I think we should all take the TD's course of action as extreme and not good for the event or for chess. Yes, So was warned (although its unclear whether the TD actually looked to see exactly what So was writing, which the TD should have done, and on seeing it was just self-encouragement stuff, should have allowed... more on this in a bit). I agree that So acted stupidly (or maybe defiantly?) given past warnings. But all the people warning him should have banded to get the rule changed rather than get everyone in line with it.

I wonder what Maurice Ashley would have said in live commentary if this happened in the playoffs of the Millionaire Open. Here he is trying to get chess to appeal to wider audience, and this would have ruined everything, turning people away in disgust.

And finally, there is the question of Akobian. Was he complaining because he thought So was writing down game analysis? Or was he complaining because he was simply 'distracted and annoyed' by So writing down anything at all? If it's the latter, then Akobian needs to be made an example of as well, because his action is detrimental to organized chess. If Player A keeps getting out of his chair, standing over the board, then sitting down again... over and over while Player B is thinking.... could Player B complain and have Player A get warnings and even forfeited? Anything could be taken as annoying or disturbing, including the sound of the other person breathing.

Here are 2 suggestions for FIDE:

(1) the rule pertaining to being 'distracted or annoyed' should be done away with or at least reworded to mention only behavior considered "excessive or abnormal". If you want spectators at chess events, learn from poker. Chess is too much like church -- allow some noise! Stop glorifying players as if they are in some trance and we can't disturb them. If any player absolutely needs peace and quiet, that player is free to shut his or her eyes and plug his or her ears while thinking.

(2) allow players to write down any notes they want during the game, even lines of analysis...they can write these notes on their own time or on their opponent's time. They cannot bring any existing materials to the board, including their own pre-written notes. I think this was the spirit of the existing rule, to prevent the use of pre-existing notes, but again, the rule was written very ambiguously.

[Caleb Petersen]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

I agree that rule about annoying your opponent should be removed or at the very least seriously modified. According to that rule if you opponent moves his pieces it could be distracting to you, or hitting the clock, or writing down the move. Clearly no one would ever get away with complaining about that much less ever complain about it because it would go against other rules. However the rule means anything that annoys you that isn't part of other rules can be complained about to the arbiter. If someone is making excessive noise during a game then it needs to be checked into, however it should have to be an excessive disturbance before the arbiter is notified. (cell-phones, any type of talking above a whisper ect.) I realize the point of the rule isn't so that anyone can complain about anything, however that is how it's worded.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

I agree that rule about annoying your opponent should be removed or at the very least seriously modified.

I've directed events, mostly correspondence, both nationally and internationally. Must have been thousands of players over the decades. There were a lot of complaints about opponents being annoying. They had the written moves and comments to show so there was proof.

I can tell you the vast majority of the complaints resulted in a reply from me to the person complaining stating he was being too easily annoyed. Any complaint of annoyance is mostly open to interpretation of what constitutes an annoyance.

A complaint consisted of stating the problem, citing a rule and stating the penalty being sought or requested.

A complaint after only 6 moves and the awarding of the game is odd.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

I really like the next result of So after this disaster. He beat Kamsky with black. A very good response.

[Hans Jung]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

He didnt just beat him he crushed him! - but I understand and agree with your point.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

If someone is writing down a grocery list it could be a mnemonic device.

more generally, either it is something not relevant, in which case he doesn't need to write it down, or it is something that affects the game, in which case it is prohibited and he shouldn't write it down.

Writing down some generic positive thinking wouldn't affect my game but So clearly believes it affects his game. As such it is something that is prohibited.

But, next time you are at an event, you meet someone you haven't seen in a while and need to write down his phone number...... (but then, you shouldn't have been talking to him anyway)

[Wayne Komer]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Wesley So’s recent forfeit
April 12, 2015

Chess24.com has an update on So’s forfeit and describes an Aeroflot forfeit for writing moves down before playing them. The two players involved are Pavel Dvalishvili and Orkhan Abdulov in Aeroflot Open B, Round 8:

The essence of the confrontation was as follows. Abdulov’s position became absolutely lost (moreover, there was a still a long way until the time control – Black hadn’t made it out of the opening), but at the same time the Azerbaijan master appealed to the arbiter on a number of occasions, since Dvalishvili was writing down his move on the scoresheet before he made it. And after another such episode he demanded that his opponent be forfeited. The arbiters rushed to the scene, the game was stopped and the players were taken out into the corridor – what happened there could only be guessed at from some exclamations. Soon the Chief Arbiter Geurt Gijssen also arrived, and they translated from Russian to English to explain the problem that had arisen. And Gijssen, in full accordance with the rules, gave Dvalishvili a zero. It turns out that if a player, despite a warning from the arbiter, continues to write down his moves before he makes them on the board then he can face a tough punishment.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Wesley So’s recent forfeit
April 12, 2015

Chess24.com has an update on So’s forfeit and describes an Aeroflot forfeit for writing moves down before playing them. The two players involved are Pavel Dvalishvili and Orkhan Abdulov in Aeroflot Open B, Round 8:

The essence of the confrontation was as follows. Abdulov’s position became absolutely lost (moreover, there was a still a long way until the time control – Black hadn’t made it out of the opening), but at the same time the Azerbaijan master appealed to the arbiter on a number of occasions, since Dvalishvili was writing down his move on the scoresheet before he made it. And after another such episode he demanded that his opponent be forfeited. The arbiters rushed to the scene, the game was stopped and the players were taken out into the corridor – what happened there could only be guessed at from some exclamations. Soon the Chief Arbiter Geurt Gijssen also arrived, and they translated from Russian to English to explain the problem that had arisen. And Gijssen, in full accordance with the rules, gave Dvalishvili a zero. It turns out that if a player, despite a warning from the arbiter, continues to write down his moves before he makes them on the board then he can face a tough punishment.

This is so absurd. Organized chess just keeps on shooting itself in the foot. What is the POINT of disallowing the writing down of a move before making it?

I also notice some people on various forums stating that it didn't matter if So was just writing down lines of encouragement, because even this was, to quote one comment, "deliberately conceived to help him to avoid mistakes during the game".

Huh? We are going to enact rules to prevent players from avoiding mistakes during the game? Well, then, let's enact rules disallowing the consumption of food and drink. Let's enact rules disallowing players from standing up, stretching, doing calisthenics. Oh, breathing.... definitely have to have rules against that. Whoever makes the last valid move before passing out wins!

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

What is the POINT of disallowing the writing down of a move before making it?

Because not every written "move" transforms into a real move.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

BTW, what was an appeal outcome?

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

This is so absurd. Organized chess just keeps on shooting itself in the foot. What is the POINT of disallowing the writing down of a move before making it?

I also notice some people on various forums stating that it didn't matter if So was just writing down lines of encouragement, because even this was, to quote one comment, "deliberately conceived to help him to avoid mistakes during the game".

Huh? We are going to enact rules to prevent players from avoiding mistakes during the game? Well, then, let's enact rules disallowing the consumption of food and drink. Let's enact rules disallowing players from standing up, stretching, doing calisthenics. Oh, breathing.... definitely have to have rules against that. Whoever makes the last valid move before passing out wins!

There was an amusing story about (I may have the names wrong) Camille Coudari(?) playing in a U.S. tournament against an ancient player (Norman Whitaker?) back in the 70's. It seems the elderly opponent was having some breathing difficulty as he was wheezing at the board. Coudari(?) complained to the TD about the wheezing - the TD tried to resolve the problem somehow.
Wheezed Whitaker, "I've been playing chess for 62 years, and no one has asked me to stop breathing before!"

If in fact, it was Whitaker, see his Wikipedia entry >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_T._Whitaker