Page 1 of 26
Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:22 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Hello.
A young player arrived late at the venue and sat on the wrong board next to his actual table [at the other side of which his opponent was waiting] whose opponent had not also appeared. The arbiters have forfeited both players. Have they done the right thing?
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:11 pm
by Ian Thompson
soheil_hooshdaran wrote:Hello.
A young player arrived late at the venue and sat on the wrong board next to his actual table [at the other side of which his opponent was waiting] whose opponent had not also appeared. The arbiters have forfeited both players. Have they done the right thing?
You're saying a player was forfeited because his opponent didn't turn up (at the right board)? Unless you haven't told the whole story that's obviously not right.
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 8:24 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Oh sorry, the opponents of the recently appeared player has been given a plus,
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:49 pm
by Geoff Chandler
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:10 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
I don't see arbiter decisions taken on that thread.
After he drew the game, the arbiters forfeited him as he had sat on the wrong table.
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Today I was running a youth weekender.
A girl had a lost game against a boy who was a queen and a rook ahead. She claimed he removed his finger freom the Rook, but the boy said he removed his finger just when she anounced stalemate, and only then pressed the clock button.
I said since the arbiter was absent and the girl was the interested one, the game should be continued. Right or wrong?
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:50 pm
by Reg Clucas
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pm
Today I was running a youth weekender.
A girl had a lost game against a boy who was a queen and a rook ahead. She claimed he removed his finger freom the Rook, but the boy said he removed his finger just when she anounced stalemate, and only then pressed the clock button.
I said since the arbiter was absent and the girl was the interested one, the game should be continued. Right or wrong?
Wrong. Stalemate ends the game, regardless of whether the clock has been pressed or not. See the Laws of Chess, article 6.2.1.1.
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pm
by Ian Thompson
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pm
Today I was running a youth weekender.
A girl had a lost game against a boy who was a queen and a rook ahead. She claimed he removed his finger freom the Rook, but the boy said he removed his finger just when she anounced stalemate, and only then pressed the clock button.
I said since the arbiter was absent and the girl was the interested one, the game should be continued. Right or wrong?
Are you trying to say that the boy is claiming that he moved his rook and the girl claimed stalemate before he had let go of the piece? So the boy is claiming that he wasn't committed to playing the move giving stalemate because he hadn't let go of the piece? The boy is further claiming that the girl claiming stalemate caused him to let go of the piece and press the clock? The girl is claiming that the boy let go of the piece before she claimed stalemate?
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:18 am
by soheil_hooshdaran
Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pm
Today I was running a youth weekender.
A girl had a lost game against a boy who was a queen and a rook ahead. She claimed he removed his finger freom the Rook, but the boy said he removed his finger just when she anounced stalemate, and only then pressed the clock button.
I said since the arbiter was absent and the girl was the interested one, the game should be continued. Right or wrong?
Are you trying to say that the boy is claiming that he moved his rook and the girl claimed stalemate before he had let go of the piece? So the boy is claiming that he wasn't committed to playing the move giving stalemate because he hadn't let go of the piece? The boy is further claiming that the girl claiming stalemate caused him to let go of the piece and press the clock? The girl is claiming that the boy let go of the piece before she claimed stalemate?
Yes
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:05 am
by Ian Thompson
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:18 am
Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pm
Today I was running a youth weekender.
A girl had a lost game against a boy who was a queen and a rook ahead. She claimed he removed his finger freom the Rook, but the boy said he removed his finger just when she anounced stalemate, and only then pressed the clock button.
I said since the arbiter was absent and the girl was the interested one, the game should be continued. Right or wrong?
Are you trying to say that the boy is claiming that he moved his rook and the girl claimed stalemate before he had let go of the piece? So the boy is claiming that he wasn't committed to playing the move giving stalemate because he hadn't let go of the piece? The boy is further claiming that the girl claiming stalemate caused him to let go of the piece and press the clock? The girl is claiming that the boy let go of the piece before she claimed stalemate?
Yes
In that case your decision was wrong. You have no way of knowing whether the boy's version of events, or the girl's version of events, is correct. You have to base your decision on facts that can be verified. In this case that is that the position on the board is stalemate and the move has been completed by the boy.
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 12:05 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:05 am
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:18 am
Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pm
Are you trying to say that the boy is claiming that he moved his rook and the girl claimed stalemate before he had let go of the piece? So the boy is claiming that he wasn't committed to playing the move giving stalemate because he hadn't let go of the piece? The boy is further claiming that the girl claiming stalemate caused him to let go of the piece and press the clock? The girl is claiming that the boy let go of the piece before she claimed stalemate?
Yes
In that case your decision was wrong. You have no way of knowing whether the boy's version of events, or the girl's version of events, is correct. You have to base your decision on facts that can be verified. In this case that is that the position on the board is stalemate and the move has been completed by the boy.
I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:28 pm
by Richard Bates
I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?
What does this even mean?
I have a fond memory of stalemate involving Q+R vs K. My first main tournament success as a junior (London U9s) - 1st 5.5/6 included being stalemated in this ending in a key game. (And the tournament favourite allowing a back rank mate when a piece up
)
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:28 pm
I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?
What does this even mean?
Means that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:39 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pm
Means that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against
That makes no sense in this situation, or in most other dispute situations. Usually both sides are making a claim that is in their favour.
Re: Arbitration question
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:43 pm
by soheil_hooshdaran
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:39 pm
soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pm
Means that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against
That makes no sense in this situation, or in most other dispute situations. Usually both sides are making a claim that is in their favour.
So when does that rule apply?