Adhiban forfeits game for wearing (analog) watch...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Adhiban forfeits game for wearing (analog) watch...

    See tweet here: https://twitter.com/CazHansen/status...728410112?s=09

    After playing his 9th move against CRG Krishna, he was declared lost as he was wearing a wrist watch during the game.

  • #2
    Maybe tournament rules don't permit the use of a second (hand). : l
    "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

    Comment


    • #3
      Dang. I wear my wristwatch ONLY when I play, as it's the only time in life I don't have my phone!

      Comment


      • #4
        One of the comments I saw about this was that the regulation is set to include all kinds of watches because some digital watches can be set up to masquerade as 'analogue' (seriously?) and it was impossible to draft a rule that would cover all cases... I know some watches can have multiple displays including a plain analogue view but when you see a watch with actual hands it is hard to imagine using that to communicate in any way. I guess we are into the absurd now.

        Comment


        • #5
          What would the ruling be if a player had his opening repertoire permanently tattooed onto his forearms? Would he be forced to wear long-sleeved shirts and keep his arms covered? Would a referee have to accompany him to the toilet to make sure he removed only his pants? But then what if his repertoire was also tattooed permanently onto his legs as well? Would he be forced to use the toilet with the lights out?
          Last edited by Brad Thomson; Monday, 10th February, 2020, 10:18 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
            What would the ruling be if a player had his opening repertoire permanently tattooed onto his forearms? Would he be forced to wear long-sleeved shirts and keep his arms covered? Would a referee have to accompany him to the toilet to make sure he removed only his pants? But then what if his repertoire was also tattooed permanently onto his legs as well? Would he be forced to use the toilet with the lights out?
            God Brad, I kept laughing more and more as I read through your post!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Aris Marghetis View Post

              God Brad, I kept laughing more and more as I read through your post!!
              it kept me me entertained through and through. maybe ill get this as my first tattoo :)

              Comment


              • #8
                The arbiter weighs in: https://chessbase.in/news/Arbiters-v...watch-incident

                It seems there are a number of digital watches that can indeed masquerade as analogue looking watches, so I guess that more or less confirms the comment I first reported. It seems the Indian Chess Federation anticipated this issue and specifically adopted the blanket rule of "no watches" to remove any burden of proof on the arbiters.

                Edit note: perhaps there are both digital watches than can just look like analogue and hybrid watches that have an analogue face but also have some digital capabilities. I guess it is as confusing as it was feared.
                Last edited by Kerry Liles; Tuesday, 11th February, 2020, 05:15 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I tried a prosthetic ear loaded with Stockfish, but it
                  kept being contrary - when I essayed The Sicilian
                  it played The Irishman, and I got taken out!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just when you thought chess rules couldn't get any more stupid...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ken Craft View Post
                      Just when you thought chess rules couldn't get any more stupid...
                      This rule is anything but stupid. The players should know the rules and follow them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I believe Ken is probably lamenting the fact that FIDE rules now (apparently) have to account for nearly every situation and technology advancement... that is regrettable but likely not avoidable.

                        I noticed today that there was another watch forfeit:

                        https://www.chessbase.in/news/Swati-...-Tania-Sachdev

                        in this case, the (deputy) arbiter noticed the player sporting (ha!) a watch and the game was forfeited despite her opponent's indication she would prefer the game continue... The player who lost was WGM Swati Ghate and her opponent was IM Tania Sachdev. Very noble of Tania Sachdev but the arbiter(s) felt they could not make an exception and the rule allowed no latitude. Note in this case the opponent did not make a complaint - it was actioned by the arbiter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Kerry Liles View Post
                          I believe Ken is probably lamenting the fact that FIDE rules now (apparently) have to account for nearly every situation and technology advancement... that is regrettable but likely not avoidable.

                          I noticed today that there was another watch forfeit:

                          https://www.chessbase.in/news/Swati-...-Tania-Sachdev

                          in this case, the (deputy) arbiter noticed the player sporting (ha!) a watch and the game was forfeited despite her opponent's indication she would prefer the game continue... The player who lost was WGM Swati Ghate and her opponent was IM Tania Sachdev. Very noble of Tania Sachdev but the arbiter(s) felt they could not make an exception and the rule allowed no latitude. Note in this case the opponent did not make a complaint - it was actioned by the arbiter.
                          This arbiter seems to be having a power-trip, the IM who actually benefits instead wanted to play a game of chess against a strong opponent, and instead her preference was completely overruled.
                          University and Chess, a difficult mix.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Adam Cormier View Post

                            This arbiter seems to be having a power-trip, the IM who actually benefits instead wanted to play a game of chess against a strong opponent, and instead her preference was completely overruled.
                            It seems the rule (as interpreted by the Indian Chess Federation) does not involve the wishes of either player.
                            It was not that Tania Sachdev's preference was overruled - it was irrelevant.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X