Wesley So's recent forfeit

[Ferdinand Supsup]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

BTW, what was an appeal outcome?

http://www.chess.com/news/breaking-w...n-round-9-9186

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

BTW, what was an appeal outcome?

I'm surprised anyone would have to ask. Why would you think the action would not be blessed?

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Re: Camille Coudari and Norman Whitaker: I doubt if it was Coudari - it was more likely one of the Rubin brothers. :-)

[Nathan Zeap]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Looks like Chess rules are becoming like Golf rules :)

If an opponent complains that's where it starts. But if a warning was served it means the opponent's concern is valid and So should have obeyed to avoid disqualification. End of story.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

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

The only reason I can think of that you would mention that is that you personally would look at the opponent's written move and start analyzing only that move. No one is forcing you to do that. Let it be part of the cat and mouse game. If you want to eliminate all elements of psychology, go play a computer engine. But no, players don't want that, they prefer the human element, and part of that should be allowing writing down moves before making them... or any other notes that one can think of.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

During a game there is absolutely no reason to write anything but the moves, after they have been played.
The rules have changed over time but this is the simplest rule to enforce while respecting the spirit of the game : no extra help from notes or anything else.
Arbiters should not expect anything but chess moves on a scoresheet.
I was at least twice involved in incidents like that.
In the first case there was no arguing (even though my opponent appealed the decision to forfeit him).
After the first time control he simply started to write extensive variations all over his scoresheet !
To this day I am not sure he sees anything wrong in doing that...
In the second case my opponent wrote something like "Ne3?"
The problem was the position was repeating itself and the error "Ne3" was allowing me a three time repetition, if memory serves me well.
Of course I again claimed a win but the arbiter was simply unable to act and make a decision.
So to resolve the matter I offered a draw which was accepted.

Conclusion : a scoresheet is not an agenda or a personal diary. And beside it there is no room for that either.

[Hal Bond]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Exactly so Egidijus! One could be advertising their proposed move for a coach to see and signal some kind of evaluation. This is the primary reason the rule was changed to forbid writing moves in advance. A funny incident happened with Diane Mongeau at the 1988 Olympiad in Thessaloniki. Her opponent wrote her proposed move, Diane then transcribed it along with her own reply. Diane's opponent saw the planned response scribbled out her move and played something else.

[Jack Maguire]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter proffers his opinion on the So forfeit (:

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/...ules/25963309/

[Nathan Zeap]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

in the game of chess, concentration is key. you sit and analyze, push the piece, write moves, push the clock - that is all you have to do. anything that disturbs your opponent's concentration is prohibited, be it scribbling notes or scratching your balls.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

in the game of chess, concentration is key. you sit and analyze, push the piece, write moves, push the clock - that is all you have to do. anything that disturbs your opponent's concentration is prohibited, be it scribbling notes or scratching your balls.

Note to CFC: do not allow Nathan Zeap to become an arbiter, otherwise you will have a tournament with all forfeits based on which player complained about the other first.

Note to Nathan Zeap: stay at home and play a computer engine. Computer engines do not do anything distracting. They have no balls to scratch. You can concentrate away... and of course, still lose.

(I wrote the above notes on a noisy chalkboard as Wesley So contemplated whether to fold, call my bluff or raise all-in).

Humans are not machines and should not be expected to act like machines. The Nathan Zeap philosophy on organized chess is part of why organized chess can't get out of its rut, and likely is part of why many chess players switch over to poker and no poker players switch over to chess.

[Nathan Zeap]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

Note to CFC: do not allow Nathan Zeap to become an arbiter, otherwise you will have a tournament with all forfeits based on which player complained about the other first.

Note to Nathan Zeap: stay at home and play a computer engine. Computer engines do not do anything distracting. They have no balls to scratch. You can concentrate away... and of course, still lose.

(I wrote the above notes on a noisy chalkboard as Wesley So contemplated whether to fold, call my bluff or raise all-in).

Humans are not machines and should not be expected to act like machines. The Nathan Zeap philosophy on organized chess is part of why organized chess can't get out of its rut, and likely is part of why many chess players switch over to poker and no poker players switch over to chess.

If that's your mentality then don't play golf, where rules are sacred. I'm a Wesley So fan if your read my posts. This is OVER and there's no use crying over spilt milk. My point is So had been warned. If he was disqualified without warning then I'm on your side. Chess players have their idiosyncracies. Some couldn't think if their opponent is scribbling like he is doing a thesis. Now this is is NOT a technical disqualification like that player who got forfeited because HE WROTE THE MOVE FIRST before he moved the piece. If that rule indeed exists it SUCKS but RULES are RULES and much like golf some border on idiocy but they have to be respected.

Nice try Paul but you're jumping on your horse too quick. I'm not that dumb.

One another note - I'm glad it happened to Wesley because it enraged him. Now he's playing like a maniac and beat the crap out of Giri and Adams.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

If that's your mentality then don't play golf, where rules are sacred. I'm a Wesley So fan if your read my posts. This is OVER and there's no use crying over spilt milk. My point is So had been warned. If he was disqualified without warning then I'm on your side. Chess players have their idiosyncracies. Some couldn't think if their opponent is scribbling like he is doing a thesis. Now this is is NOT a technical disqualification like that player who got forfeited because HE WROTE THE MOVE FIRST before he moved the piece. If that rule indeed exists it SUCKS but RULES are RULES and much like golf some border on idiocy but they have to be respected.

Nice try Paul but you're jumping on your horse too quick. I'm not that dumb.

One another note - I'm glad it happened to Wesley because it enraged him. Now he's playing like a maniac and beat the crap out of Giri and Adams.

This isn't about Wesley So, although with respect to him, it matters nothing what he does over the chessboard: if he drives a car and kills someone because he "didn't know it was against the rules to continue through a stop sign" despite that being part of his driver's test, then there's a PROBLEM, isn't there? As Nakamura said in so many words, chess players tend to not adjust to real-life situations, and So is an extreme example of that.

(Note to society: beware of professional chess players, and especially Wesley So.)

But my last post was not to complain about So being forfeited. It was about organized chess and the narrow thinking that is pervasive in it and that you seem to acquiesce to, saying the usual "rules are rules" instead of saying "let's do away with this stupid rule". You are obviously a follower and not a leader. That's fine, 99% of people are followers. Go follow, that's what you do. It's called the 'herd instinct'.

It takes leaders to know that stupid rules do not *have to be* respected. That's why we don't have human slavery any more in most developed societies. At one point, that was the norm, but a small group of people led the way to what most of us agree today is a more civilized and sensible way of life.

Poker players are able to think and run through probability and EV calculations with all kinds of things going on around them. There's no crying among them for everyone to shut up or to sit absolutely still. Part of human chess ability should be the ability to focus in spite of distractions, because even if the opponent is not writing a thesis, there are still going to be distractions. Real life has all kinds of distractions. If we're going to use chess to teach kids about real life, that should include dealing with distractions. Chess is already artificial enough without the stupidity of trying to create a "cone of silence" around it. Ditto for golf, BTW.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

.....

Poker players are able to think and run through probability and EV calculations with all kinds of things going on around them. There's no crying among them for everyone to shut up or to sit absolutely still. Part of human chess ability should be the ability to focus in spite of distractions, because even if the opponent is not writing a thesis, there are still going to be distractions. Real life has all kinds of distractions. If we're going to use chess to teach kids about real life, that should include dealing with distractions. Chess is already artificial enough without the stupidity of trying to create a "cone of silence" around it. Ditto for golf, BTW.

It is kind of funny, this insistence on silence at tournaments, when you consider that most chess clubs are very noisy places. :)

[Nathan Zeap]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

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

@Paul Bonham ..A game is not a sport unless there are rules governing it. The beauty of a sport lies not in circumvention, compassion nor complacency but the rules that bind it to ensure that every player measures up to a standard that is FAIR AND SQUARE and so that a player can exact a victory without exception nor advantage nor distraction, in short - beyond reproach. That is why we have boxing weigh ins, drug tests, no coaching from coaches during a tennis or golf games, no clicking cameras during a golf tournament, no flash cameras in a tennis game, no balk moves in baseball and many more seemingly silly sounding rules from every conceivable sport. This is not curtailment of your civil liberties - these are rules of the game designed by the people who play these very games and not by some dictatorial entity out to oppress anyone – the purpose of which is to preserve the level of excellence and sportsmanship of the game.

Let us not bring our Justin Trudeau thinking into the realm of sport. As soon as its code of conduct and by laws are created it is pretty much etched in stone. It has to be THAT WAY for it to work effectively. Do you think instant TV replays deviate from rules ?? Heck no. They replay to MAKE SURE it is consistent with the rules. In the world of sport, rules are GOLDEN. In fact, it's everything.

[Nathan Zeap]

Re: Wesley So's recent forfeit

This isn't about Wesley So, although with respect to him, it matters nothing what he does over the chessboard: if he drives a car and kills someone because he "didn't know it was against the rules to continue through a stop sign" despite that being part of his driver's test, then there's a PROBLEM, isn't there? As Nakamura said in so many words, chess players tend to not adjust to real-life situations, and So is an extreme example of that.

(Note to society: beware of professional chess players, and especially Wesley So.)

But my last post was not to complain about So being forfeited. It was about organized chess and the narrow thinking that is pervasive in it and that you seem to acquiesce to, saying the usual "rules are rules" instead of saying "let's do away with this stupid rule". You are obviously a follower and not a leader. That's fine, 99% of people are followers. Go follow, that's what you do. It's called the 'herd instinct'.

It takes leaders to know that stupid rules do not *have to be* respected. That's why we don't have human slavery any more in most developed societies. At one point, that was the norm, but a small group of people led the way to what most of us agree today is a more civilized and sensible way of life.

Poker players are able to think and run through probability and EV calculations with all kinds of things going on around them. There's no crying among them for everyone to shut up or to sit absolutely still. Part of human chess ability should be the ability to focus in spite of distractions, because even if the opponent is not writing a thesis, there are still going to be distractions. Real life has all kinds of distractions. If we're going to use chess to teach kids about real life, that should include dealing with distractions. Chess is already artificial enough without the stupidity of trying to create a "cone of silence" around it. Ditto for golf, BTW.

@Paul Bonham. A game is not a sport unless there are rules governing it. The beauty of a sport lies not in circumvention, compassion nor complacency but the rules that bind it to ensure that every player measures up to a standard that is FAIR AND SQUARE and so that a player can exact a victory without exception nor advantage nor distraction, in short - beyond reproach. That is why we have boxing weigh ins, drug tests, no coaching from coaches during a tennis or golf games, no clicking cameras during a golf tournament, no flash cameras in a tennis game, no balk moves in baseball and many more seemingly silly sounding rules from every conceivable sport. This is not curtailment of your civil liberties - these are rules of the game designed by the people who play these very games and not by some dictatorial entity out to oppress anyone – the purpose of which is to preserve the level of excellence and sportsmanship of the game.

Let us not bring our Justin Trudeau thinking into the realm of sport. As soon as its code of conduct and by laws are created it is pretty much etched in stone. It has to be THAT WAY for it to work effectively. Do you think instant TV replays deviate from rules ?? Heck no. They replay to MAKE SURE it is consistent with the rules. In the world of sport, rules are GOLDEN. In fact, it's everything.