Arbitration question
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Arbitration question
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 3561
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Arbitration question
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.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?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
Oh sorry, the opponents of the recently appeared player has been given a plus,
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
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.
After he drew the game, the arbiters forfeited him as he had sat on the wrong table.
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
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?
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?
-
- Posts: 607
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Arbitration question
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.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pmToday 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?
-
- Posts: 3561
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Arbitration question
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?soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pmToday 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?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
YesIan Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pmAre 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?soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pmToday 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?
-
- Posts: 3561
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Arbitration question
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.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:18 amYesIan Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 11:41 pmAre 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?soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:24 pmToday 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?
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 11:05 amIn 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.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:18 amYesIan 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?
-
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Arbitration question
What does this even mean?I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?
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 )
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
Means that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided againstRichard Bates wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:28 pmWhat does this even mean?I have heard that the interested player should not be favoured, almost 13 years ago, so it was wrong?
-
- Posts: 4828
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Arbitration question
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.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pmMeans that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against
-
- Posts: 3148
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:24 pm
Re: Arbitration question
So when does that rule apply?IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:39 pmThat makes no sense in this situation, or in most other dispute situations. Usually both sides are making a claim that is in their favour.soheil_hooshdaran wrote: ↑Sat Nov 17, 2018 3:29 pmMeans that the one whose claim would be in his favour should be decided against