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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
in round 4, U1900, Lily Zhou vs. Jack Ding
the game finished the last and many people watched the game, many people witnessed that Jack's clock stuck at 2 seconds for at least more than 5 more moves until Lily's clock run out from more than 12 seconds.both side clicked the clock quickly, the arbitor Brian said he will make a decision later, for now consider Lily loss on time for paring next round,
A lot of witness has told organizer Alex and arbitor Brian.
I would like to ask arbitor experts here, how do you think?
in round 4, U1900, Lily Zhou vs. Jack Ding
the game finished the last and many people watched the game, many people witnessed that Jack's clock stuck at 2 seconds for at least more than 5 more moves until Lily's clock run out from more than 12 seconds.both side clicked the clock quickly, the arbitor Brian said he will make a decision later, for now consider Lily loss on time for paring next round,
A lot of witness has told organizer Alex and arbitor Brian.
I would like to ask arbitor experts here, how do you think?
It's not impossible to play several moves without losing any time. Did you simply try to see after the game if the clock was working well? If there's no strong evidence that the clock was not working, I don't see why the result should be changed...
Re: Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
The time control was 30/90, SD/60. Was the arbiter watching the game during time trouble?
In any event, I suspect the arbiter will rule that a claim of a defective clock must be made DURING THE GAME, though in that kind of time scramble, I doubt anyone had time to call the arbiter.
Relevant FIDE rules are
6.10 a.
Every indication given by the clocks is considered to be conclusive in the absence of any evident defect. A chess clock with an evident defect shall be replaced. The arbiter shall replace the clock and use his best judgment when determining the times to be shown on the replacement chess clocks.
13.3
The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time, enforce decisions he has made and impose penalties on players where appropriate. (my emphasis)
Re: Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
I am interested to see if Hal Bond will post a reply to this question. I tend to agree with Coleman that a decision should be made during the game. If the clock is faulty the tournament director should be present to witness the faulty clock so he can remedy the situation. I feel like it is the players responsibily to see that the clock is not working properly. The spectators should never interfere with the game in progress alerting the players of the clock. If the opponent does not find fault with the clock and it flags I think that the correct decision is that the player loses on time. I believe all the clocks are checked to see if they are in proper working order before the game starts. It is hard to impose rulings after a game is over.
in round 4, U1900, Lily Zhou vs. Jack Ding
the game finished the last and many people watched the game, many people witnessed that Jack's clock stuck at 2 seconds for at least more than 5 more moves until Lily's clock run out from more than 12 seconds.both side clicked the clock quickly, the arbitor Brian said he will make a decision later, for now consider Lily loss on time for paring next round,
A lot of witness has told organizer Alex and arbitor Brian.
I would like to ask arbitor experts here, how do you think?
you don't watch many speed games I think. Good blitz players can play several moves without (apparent) loss of time (but are in fact using some fraction of a second). A lot of their motion is done while the other person is moving to press the clock.
And at that kind of time pressure, what is done when and who is pressing what when is pretty random.
So, there is no dispute unless you can show that the clock was in fact defective.
But personally, speaking as an organizer, they should have used increments.
you don't watch many speed games I think. Good blitz players can play several moves without (apparent) loss of time (but are in fact using some fraction of a second). A lot of their motion is done while the other person is moving to press the clock.
And at that kind of time pressure, what is done when and who is pressing what when is pretty random.
So, there is no dispute unless you can show that the clock was in fact defective.
But personally, speaking as an organizer, they should have used increments.
A move isn't completed until a player presses their clock. So, wouldn't moving on your opponent's time be illegal? Shouldn't the TD advise the offending player to stop and add time to the other player's clock? I 100% agree that increments (even the Americans' awful "five-second delay") is better than no increments at all.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
Re: Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
Tom, what Roger said was "A lot of their motion is done while the other person is moving to press the clock" which is legal. A move is made on the board, and as the player moves his arm to press the clock, the opponent is already moving his hand to make his move. I've seen some very fast blitz players.
I fully agree that increments are better than no increments. Digital clocks have been around for what... 10 years?
Tom, what Roger said was "A lot of their motion is done while the other person is moving to press the clock" which is legal. A move is made on the board, and as the player moves his arm to press the clock, the opponent is already moving his hand to make his move. I've seen some very fast blitz players.
I fully agree that increments are better than no increments. Digital clocks have been around for what... 10 years?
I have been in this position in blitz games. I have had my hand interfered with or even blocked when trying to press my clock. In some cases I had the feeling this was a deliberate ploy. In particular when I am white and have to reach across the board to get to the clock.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 24th February, 2013, 09:54 PM.
Why wasn't there an incremental time control? It would just about eliminate situations like this.
I think the organizers already explained this before as their not being sure of having enough digital clocks for all sections. In addition to all the other expenses and requirements to hold tournaments I wouldn't think it fair to ask a student organization to go to the expense of providing digital clocks for everyone. I guess I would turn the question around and ask why not everyone has a digital clock to bring to tournaments. I even wonder why some people show up to tournaments and never bring a clock, assuming their opponent will.
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Sunday, 24th February, 2013, 09:56 PM.
Tom, what Roger said was "A lot of their motion is done while the other person is moving to press the clock" which is legal. A move is made on the board, and as the player moves his arm to press the clock, the opponent is already moving his hand to make his move. I've seen some very fast blitz players.
I fully agree that increments are better than no increments. Digital clocks have been around for what... 10 years?
Sorry, I took it to mean that Player A has moved but hasn't pressed the clock yet, and while reaching for the clock Player B has picked up their piece and started to move it. Mea culpa.
I would be surprised if anyone could actually play five moves in under one second without violating the rules as outlined above.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Sunday, 24th February, 2013, 10:19 PM.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
(even the Americans' awful "five-second delay") is better than no increments at all.
I play most of my chess south of the border, and completely agree. Although five second delay is ugly (why not a 5 second increment?) - it is A LOT better than traditional sudden death. Those 5 seconds greatly reduce the need for arbiters to get involved in end-of-game time scrambles. And don't add much time to the game to accomplish this.
Sorry, I took it to mean that Player A has moved but hasn't pressed the clock yet, and while reaching for the clock Player B has picked up their piece and started to move it. Mea culpa.
I would be surprised if anyone could actually play five moves in under one second without violating the rules as outlined above.
His view is that it is impossible in a blitz situation to enforce a rule that a player may not move until the other player has completed (by pressing his clock) his move. So, he considers the second player moving (and touching pieces) between the first player releasing his piece and moving to the clock legal. He does insist that the first player is always allowed to press his clock. (so at least some time must elapse on the second player's clock).
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Monday, 25th February, 2013, 12:17 AM.
Re: Dispute - What do you think, RE: Hart House Tournament Round 4 lose on time
If there was a 2 sec vs 12 sec visible then a digital clock must have been used.
Was it a Hart House Chess clock or one of the player's clocks.
Many details left out from original post.
When a game is down to that fast anything can happen.
Maybe the 12 sec player was not pressing the button hard enough to start the 2 sec clock. I did not witness the game so I cannot make a concrete comment.
Did the losing player appeal the decision?
Was this for First Prize in U1900?
His view is that it is impossible in a blitz situation to enforce a rule that a player may not move until the other player has completed (by pressing his clock) his move. So, he considers the second player moving (and touching pieces) between the first player releasing his piece and moving to the clock legal. He does insist that the first player is always allowed to press his clock. (so at least some time must elapse on the second player's clock).
Tweet
Comment