2017 Canadian Championship

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

The FIDE ARBITERS’ COMMISSION says this at the end of article 3.7:

"When a player places an inverted (upside‐down) Rook in the promotion square and continues the game, the piece is considered as a Rook, even if he names it as a “Queen” or any other piece. To put an inverted Rook on the promotion square is not considered as an illegal move. The Arbiter has to intervene and put the Rook in its correct position on the square and he may penalize the player according to the Article 12.9."

Here is the link: http://docplayer.net/43348011-Fide-a...una-sumus.html

All well and good except the player inadvertently under-promoted to a rook as a direct result of distraction from his opponent.The distraction was only obvious with the hindsight of the video.

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Controversy

The FIDE ARBITERS’ COMMISSION says this at the end of article 3.7:

"When a player places an inverted (upside‐down) Rook in the promotion square and continues the game, the piece is considered as a Rook, even if he names it as a “Queen” or any other piece. To put an inverted Rook on the promotion square is not considered as an illegal move. The Arbiter has to intervene and put the Rook in its correct position on the square and he may penalize the player according to the Article 12.9."

Here is the link: http://docplayer.net/43348011-Fide-a...una-sumus.html

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: Controversy

NAC Appeals can take a long time - sometimes weeks - so be patient.

You won't have to be THAT patient.

Taking into account that the World Cup starts September 1st, and Canada was probably the last zone to decide its representative, if there's an appeal, it should be top priority.

[John Upper]

are we reading the same rules??

The player was duped just like the arbiters in believing the Queen was available when it was not. So neither the player nor the arbiters were aware that the opponent violated rule 12.6 until looking at the video. Therefore if this were the outcome it would not be a good result and in fact would be a very lame excuse.

I wonder if everyone in this discussion is reading the same rules.

I have been quoting them from here:
https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...1&view=article

On that page, do a search for the letters "promot" and it will take you to every rule about promotion, one of which offers clear answers to some of the previous questions about promotion (e.g. does the pawn have to be put on the promotion square?):

"4.6
The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:

1. the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
2. removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.

If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured."


Secondly, what is "rule 12.6" that Sid keeps referring to?

On the above site, Article 12.6 does not mention anything about annoying behaviour, but says this:
"12.6
The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number of moves completed, except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen. The arbiter shall refrain from informing a player that his opponent has completed a move or that the player has not pressed his clock."

I would guess Sid means Article 11.5:
"It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever. This includes unreasonable claims, unreasonable offers of a draw or the introduction of a source of noise into the playing area."

I suppose calling this "12.6" could have been a typo, though it has happened in several of his posts, and continuing to call it rule 12.6 doesn't help the discussion.

OTOH, maybe there is more than one "FIDE Rule Book" being cited here?

Suggestion: if you quote any FIDE or CFC rules in this discussion, please include links to the pages/rules you are citing.

As noted above, I've been using the one on their website:

https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.h...1&view=article

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Controversy

NAC Appeals can take a long time - sometimes weeks - so be patient.

You won't have to be THAT patient.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

At the risk of being repetitive 12.6 does cover it adequately. The key being that no annoying or distracting in any manner whatsoever. At the time of the incident neither Nickolay or the arbiters were aware that rule 12.6 was violated as the queen magically reappeared at the perfect moment. The whole incident was somewhat rare although not unheard of for anyone that has ever played many games against speed chess hustlers. That is why the rule 12.6 covers unusual events with the phrase "in any manner whatsoever"

Annoyances and distractions like this might be acceptable in the park (Not!) but not during a key game for the National Championship.

Fair enough, Sid.

I am simply saying that maybe there should be a more specific rule added to address removing pieces from sight of the opponent. Although this 12.6 covers it as you say under a larger umbrella, a clearer rule would be less ambiguous or open to opinion, which might be better to avoid interpretation differences. I think in law and in contracts the clearer the better.

I must surmise you believe 12.6 is entirely adequate, but for the sake of clarity, I would like to see a rule which states one should not remove pieces from the view of their opponent.

Repetitive is good for clarity's sake as well, point taken.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Regarding Sid's cited rule, it would seem to be a reasonable interpretation he's making in regard to captured pieces in the hand(s) of an opponent, especially around the time of a possible promotion.

Sometimes I wonder about that rule in other regards, though. I've sometimes been in a tournament hall around the odd player that smells of tobacco, or even of strong body odour. Not to mention chewing gum (or food/beverage) consumption that might have a scent, or even strong perfume. In such cases another participant might ask an arbiter to talk to said player(s), but there's no guarantee the arbiter will interpret such scents as a genuine annoyance to other participants, and instead rule that said player(s) are within their rights to be the way they are.

It would seem it's always better to have beforehand a clear rule on a specific type of situation that may arise, if it's possible to do so.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: Controversy

Philosophically, however, there is a lot to be said about why these disputes happen so often. I've found that usually nobody wants to hear it.

Why do they happen?

I'm also interested in what you have to say about it.

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

but I don't see one that take this into account adequately

At the risk of being repetitive 12.6 does cover it adequately. The key being that no annoying or distracting in any manner whatsoever. At the time of the incident neither Nickolay or the arbiters were aware that rule 12.6 was violated as the queen magically reappeared at the perfect moment. The whole incident was somewhat rare although not unheard of for anyone that has ever played many games against speed chess hustlers. That is why the rule 12.6 covers unusual events with the phrase "in any manner whatsoever"

Annoyances and distractions like this might be acceptable in the park (Not!) but not during a key game for the National Championship.

[Mavros Whissell]

Re: 2017 Canadian Championship

Whether Bator withheld the Queen intentionally or not is not the question here. He was holding the Queen that Nikolay needed and that's already enough information to rule in Nikolay's favour. There is no way that you punish the person who 1) doesn't have his own Queen to promote to 2) doesn't have an extra one provided by the tournament.

Comical that our national championship didn't have arbiters who would think to place extra Queens on the table :D

This is what I think the unfortunate truth is. By holding the queen, intentionally or not, Bator has created the issues for both the arbiter and Nikolay. You can sight all the rules you want - but I don't see one that take this into account adequately. I would lean in this direction and its interesting to hear a player of Aman's caliber state this.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Controversy

NAC Appeals can take a long time - sometimes weeks - so be patient.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

The player was duped just like the arbiters in believing the Queen was available when it was not. So neither the player nor the arbiters were aware that the opponent violated rule 12.6 until looking at the video. Therefore if this were the outcome it would not be a good result and in fact would be a very lame excuse.

In line with what the CFC and some of its arbiters have become... :p

[Sid Belzberg]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

It's almost a week after the appeal (assuming it was started on the 2nd); any result?

My guess as to the outcome:
- Mistakes made by all parties
- Since there does not appear to be a claim of "I am continuing to play this game under protest," the result will stand.

The player was duped just like the arbiters in believing the Queen was available when it was not. So neither the player nor the arbiters were aware that the opponent violated rule 12.6 until looking at the video. Therefore if this were the outcome it would not be a good result and in fact would be a very lame excuse.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

It's almost a week after the appeal (assuming it was started on the 2nd); any result?

My guess as to the outcome:
- Mistakes made by all parties
- Since there does not appear to be a claim of "I am continuing to play this game under protest," the result will stand.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Re: Controversy

1) No, you stop the clock and call for the arbiter, without making any move. This is the proper procedure to promote a pawn with an unavailable piece or claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule.
2) NEVER do that.
3) If you put the pawn on the 8th rank without replacing the pawn with a piece, say "Queen" out loud and THEN stop the clock, you only manage to play an illegal move (a7-a8=P is an illegal move). You might be allowed to get a Queen, though, if the penalty for this illegal move is not "losing the game". Alternatively, if you play your move, stop the clock and call for the arbiter to claim a draw by 3-fold repetition or the 50-move rule, this does not work because it is not your turn to move anymore. Your opponent might decide to play a move that no longer allows you to claim a draw.

So, every time you need the assistance of the arbiter for a serious reason, stop your clock and call for the arbiter. Never play any move before or while doing this. Of course, every time you stop the clock, you must have a valid reason, if not you might get a warning or penalty from the arbiter.

Thanks Louis. It does makes more sense to stop the clock before. Only problem I see is if a player pushes the pawn and THEN realizes the piece is missing.

And this should be clearly written somewhere in the FIDE rulebook. Because it seems even world champions can get it wrong.