Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

[John Coleman]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Nah, it's the full moon that brings them out.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Must be part of ed's new year resolution

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

How/why did this thread get revived 6 months after it "died"?

[Kevin Me]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

3 mins for the R + P and about 12 for the Q ...me, I would've played it out

yes, but you're a patzer

[Ed Zator]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Hi Ed;

Not sure from your post but was the R+P player with the 3 Minutes left?

3 mins for the R + P and about 12 for the Q ...me, I would've played it out

[Ed Zator]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

i do not reckon someone named "zator" is in a position to be making racist comments about others O:

Stupid joke, but not racist. If it was, it would've been edited out like
the "upstart young Asians" and "old white man" remarks on another
thread "Calling Out Vlad Dobrich".

I don't get your "reckon someone named..." comment.

[Bindi Cheng]

Re: Re : Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

I have been an adult (in age at least) for a lot longer than you and fortunately words like "asshole" have never not been part of my daily menu. My background is totally middle class and public schools. But my parents would not have tolerated that kind of language.

"Youth is generally the time of life when we are too old to follow an advice." -Unknown

Jean, before you try to single-handedly fight the War on Foul Language through quotes and examples of sheltered lives, why did you decline to be on the Olympic Team? It`s a pretty big thing and I don`t think you`ll ever get another shot at it.
And Ed, you`re truly a funny guy, did you just microsoft word one of those words and then just synonymed the rest until you ran out of ideas? Thanks for the laughs

[David Ottosen]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

The TD cannot however.

I don't necessarily expect the TD to do anything; just to listen to the concern and show some honest interest. I totally disagree that it's not worth taking a perfunctory look at the game and telling the complainer "looked fair to me" or "he definitely made a bad move but there's nothing to indicate suspicious play" or whatever.

If your contention is the TD should say "I'm not going to find anything or do anything so I'm not going to bother", well I can't say I agree.

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

I've had two games in tournaments where I went down a piece to a pawn as white on like move 5 in both games because I forgot about the same damn trap in the QGD. I drew the first time and won the second time. The second time was a weekend tournament with prizes. I suppose someone could have accused me of slipping my opponent a $20 bill under the table, otherwise how the heck did I win a piece down? The truth is I just got angry at myself, buckled down and both my opponents got overconfident because hey they were a whole piece up on move 5. The second time was easier because I had the experience of the first time and knew I could get some nice positional features by pawn storming the centre and King side.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

A player can infer whatever he wants, and is subject to no burden of proof.....

The TD cannot however. Unless you believe the TD can penalize players for making insufficiently good moves (in which case you should expand on what positions might qualify), there is no point to looking at the game. All he can do is look pensive and say "Player X played a bad move". So, in the absence of any other evidence, even flimsy evidence, he should not review the game.

Perhaps you feel that what's the harm? Look at the game, pat the complainer on the head to make him feel good and rule that nothing can be done. Well, we have someone complaining here about people who didn't play the best moves (suspicious!), in other cases people have complained about players playing the best moves (as reccomended by Rybka - suspicious!). The chess public needs to be informed/aware that playing bad (good) moves is not evidence of anything and all complaints based solely on that observation will be dismissed. Making accusations based solely on the moves that people play should be discouraged.




Addendum: we have all played games where something inexplicable happened. Here are some memorable ones from my games - and no one suggested that anything was untoward.

white (a 2400 FIDE player) to move. I won (white had been much better and I managed to liquidate to this. White tanked to review the situation. Unfortunately, he only had 5 minutes on his clock)



white (a well known Quebec expert) to move. I won. (no time pressure, no money at stake, he just blundered with 1. f4? (equals) and then tried to hard to win)


Black is a well known chess talk poster. I won as white. Unlike the position being discussed in the rest of the thread - this position is a tablebase draw. So, if the position being discussed where black drew a tablebase win is suspicious, then this position where white won a tablebase draw is suspicious.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

The standard of "might be suspect" is higher than " the result of the game was different from what I expected".

Even if the player with the Q blundered and lost, no inference about "suspect" collusion can be made.

A player can infer whatever he wants, and is subject to no burden of proof. I think the TD could have handled it in one of two ways:

If the TD's position is that a player not involved in a game cannot make a complaint about it, that's what he should have answered. I think it would be a poor decision, but as pointed out, there is justification in the laws of chess.

If the TD does not take this route, he should ask what the reason for the complaint is. If the complainer says "in my view, player X had a substantial advantage and agreed to a draw without reason and affected my prize", then the TD should at least ask to see the game score.

In this case, the player complained, and the TD (for all appearances to the player) simply ignored it. The customer (and I do believe the player is a customer for the TD) isn't always right, but they have to at least think they might be right :)

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

asked the TD to look at a game that might be suspect.......

The standard of "might be suspect" is higher than " the result of the game was different from what I expected".

Even if the player with the Q blundered and lost, no inference about "suspect" collusion can be made.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Here's where we differ Neil.I did not see any place in the Laws of Chess where a non-player could bring forth a complaint.

The rules could be amended to say: "people other than players and closed relatives (of the arbiter) can talk to the arbiter, and not only about where to get chinese food after the round. The arbiter can then expel them from the room or investigate upon a worthy confidential observation.'

[John Coleman]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

This situation was answered in Geurt Gijssen's column at ChessCafe this month. The answer was

"You mention that a player went to the arbiter about cheating in another game. A player who has finished his game is considered a spectator. The question is whether the arbiter must act on the protest of a spectator. My opinion is that he is not forced to do so, but it is advisable to investigate the matter."

[Ken Craft]

Re: Excellent Canadian Open, Spoiled

Here's where we differ Neil.I did not see any place in the Laws of Chess where a non-player could bring forth a complaint.