If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
should a national championship be decided by a player who absent-mindedly hides a critical piece required by his opponent and a team of apparently unobservant and unthinking arbiters?
This is chess and the CFC so yes, anything goes if it's not very specifically covered in the rulebook. Some players know that and know how to take advantage of that.
As such, you can either stop the clock right away before even moving the pawn and restart the clock right before putting a new piece on the board, or move the pawn to d8 and then stop the clock. Either way would be fine.
So you can push the pawn and then stop the clock to look for the missing piece? Just so it's clear, we're talking about stoping the clock, not starting your opponent's time.
I might have got it wrong, but this seems contradictory to what Louis wrote. But I'm really wondering: is this specifically covered in the laws of chess, or are we just arguing about each other's interpretation? I don't mind either way, I'm just really curious to know, in case I end up playing in a tournament with a trigger happy arbiter.
Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Sunday, 9th July, 2017, 10:01 PM.
In chess, to hide a captured piece from the opponent's view. example: Hey man, did you sambuev my queen?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Bator is not only guilty of distracting his opponent but also of not informing the arbiter that he did, instead his actions would indicate that he covered up what he did.
You do not seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Except for very few issues when the arbiter must intervene, if there is any problem, a player must complain to the arbiter during the game. When the game is over, it is too late.
Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.
Last edited by Louis Morin; Monday, 10th July, 2017, 03:41 AM.
Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.
There an interesting situation when a player mates/stalemates the opponent and nobody notices, the game progresses. Later somebody figures out that there was mate/stalemate. What is a result?:)
Agreed. Nothing is wrong with playing rapids until a winner emerges. Blitz is just calling for trouble.
There were four rapids games to break a tie. imho, even that was too much - after grueling tight schedule of normal chess they were forced to play on the same day rapid games. How many were blitz games scheduled till armageddon?
You do not seem to understand that this is irrelevant. Except for very few issues when the arbiter must intervene, if there is any problem, a player must complain to the arbiter during the game. When the game is over, it is too late.
Example: let's say a player wins a Queen with an illegal move. His opponent should complain to the arbiter. But if nobody spots the illegal move and the opponent resigns, nothing can be done anymore to change the result, even if later the illegal move is found on video.
The arbiter intervened here on the basis of incorrect information. Furthermore it should be noted that when Nickolay was reaching for any piece for promotion Bator's right arm was in the way causing Nickolay to use both hands and could not even get to the clock properly to stop it in a timely way in compliance with the rule. Finally the intervention was based on a 337 page document that is the arbiters manual. It is not even reasonable to expect players to memorize this manual that is not part of the laws of chess. The above were based on other observations given to me by a FIDE arbiter.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 10th July, 2017, 09:58 AM.
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."
While it is not relevant to FIDE tournaments, the USCF book states that the upside-down rook is a queen (and it's not illegal move).
imho, the arbiter did not act properly when enforcing his ruling - shouts stop stop, tries to stop the clock and fails, points to a d1 square and says something what was not clear to at least Black player (Nikolay did not look to understand what was happening - "illegal move?") All kind of talks around (by whom? assistant arbiters?) Pointing to a queen what was not here on a moment of promotion.
While an arbiter should not place queen or other piece on the table during the game, he definitely needed to look at least for the queen on the table several moves before the promotion.
***
The Bator's hand under the table - look at the table width - it's not the largest table to keep hand on it. Even it has less space on his side than Noritsyn's one. (Following Sid logic it was a deliberate action to reduce the space to disturb the opponent LOL
Holding a piece - the queen is the best piece to squeeze during the tension - it fits perfectly in the hand. Not once or twice I needed to snatch it from opponents hands during blitz. Opponents did same to me too :)
***
Thinking about fault distribution:
IMHO
Bator - has not broken any specific rule. Though his action (holding a queen) snowballed the opponent.
Nikolay - the lack of knowledge of specific and rarely used rules ruined the game - possibility to stop the clock, simply leaving the pawn to enforce a queen. Made a mistake by promoting with two hands. Played with the "unofficial rule" - an upside-down rook as a queen.
Arbiter - acted almost by book, but failed to communicate properly his ruling. Created a skirmish around the table. Could say - he did not control the situation.
***
Most likely we will hear ( an I would love) from IA Aris Marghetis in the FIDE Abiters' Magazine. His approach to rules is quite interesting. Probably he and IA Hal Bond will not write here anything till the NAC will make a decision.
Apparently one of the pawn studies I posted below can be related to the current controversy regarding the Canadian Championship. Namely: white Ke3, Pc3, Ph4; black Ka3, Pb5, Pc4; white to play and win.
Supposing this was the position in the deciding blitz playoff game in which all the present conditions apply and after 1.h5 b4 2.h6 b3 3.h7 b2 4.h8(IR) ‘inverted rook’ b1(Q) 5.(IR)a8+ Kb3 6.(IR)b8+ Kxc3 7.(IR)xb1
…and before the word ‘stalemate’ can be spoken, the arbiter does his duty according to fide regulations and jumps in and uprights the rook. Play on, he says.
Suppose the un-stalemated player refuses.
Does he have a case anywhere else but in public opinion for arbiter interference?
What if the inverted rook player later claims that he knew the inverted rook was only a rook?
What does an inverted rook mean then?
1) If a player stops the clock, asks the arbiter for a Q, but does so before pushing the pawn to the 8th rank, is he then obligated to promote it on that move?
2) If a player pushes a pawn to the 8th rank, then stops the clock and asks for a Q, is he then obligated to promote it to a Q or can he stop the clock again and ask for a N, for example?
1. The player should not stop the clock before executing the promotion. He should be penalized as he did not touch a pawn and he can change his mind with promotion.
6.11.4 If a player stops the chessclock in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, the arbiter shall determine whether the player had any valid reason for doing so. If the player had no valid reason for stopping the chessclock, the player shall be penalised in accordance with Article 12.9.
"6.11.2
A player may stop the chessclock only in order to seek the arbiter’s assistance, for example when promotion has taken place and the piece required is not available."
(not something like "would take place")
What is promotion: 3.7.5.1 When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop or knight of the same colour on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion’.
3.7.5.2 The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously.
3.7.5.3 This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate.
This part might be confusing that promotion is allowed to execute in various ways: "4.6 The act of promotion may be performed in various ways:
4.6.1 the pawn does not have to be placed on the square of arrival,
4.6.2 removing the pawn and putting the new piece on the square of promotion may occur in any order.
4.6.3 If an opponent’s piece stands on the square of promotion, it must be captured."
However that "HAS TAKEN PLACE" is only possible when the pawn is on the 8th rank and needs to be exchange. If the player has a required piece no need to stop the clock or move the pawn to 8th rank.
The language of rules could be improved to avoid misinterpretations.
2. He is not obligated to promote to an asked piece:
"4.4.4 promotes a pawn, the choice of the piece is finalised when the piece has touched the square of promotion."
Though, the arbiter might warn (the lightest penalty or use more severe penalty) the player for stopping the clock too often.
"I would bet that had there been no arbiter interference, Bator Sambuev would have played on understanding that the inverted rook was a Queen" PB
From the video this seems to be the case as he continues to play without protest. Of course it can be claimed that a protest could have been made whenever the inverted rook moved other than a rook. Somewhere in these threads I believe there is the claim that Mr. Sambuev said he knew the ref would default the inverted rook. How did he know this?
The end position before promotion is now famous. From a practical perspective, after the rook was a la fide uprighted, I'm speculating that trading rooks and going at it with N+2Ps Vs Q would have offered better drawing chances than with the r's on the board. What's your thought.
Tweet
Comment