You might want to have a look at the recently published FIDE Arbiters ManualWadih Khoury wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:53 amI think I am going to regret going for an arbiter course
Ken Regan's notes start on p65 for those interested
You might want to have a look at the recently published FIDE Arbiters ManualWadih Khoury wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:53 amI think I am going to regret going for an arbiter course
That you cannot get a sensible answer.
Mick, thank you for the plug.Mick Norris wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:03 pmYou might want to have a look at the recently published FIDE Arbiters Manual
Ken Regan's notes start on p65 for those interested
An interesting add-on to this is would make a difference if Black offered a draw? Is there a difference between Black offering draw on move 100 or offering a draw on move 102?Tim Harding wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmThat you cannot get a sensible answer.
If you want experienced arbiters like Stewart to give up their time answering queries, then please present a complete and legal position and all relevant facts.
On a couple of points earlier:
a) In Ireland, the rule that if your phone makes any sound then you lose the game is strictly enforced.
Doctors on call should probably not be playing a rated game.
b) The case of a player with K+R v K+N losing on time actually occurred in one of the subsidiary events of the 2019 Irish Championship; FA Ivan Baburin made the correct ruling.
For the record, here is the game.
Can we assume there was no increment?Tim Harding wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:33 pmb) The case of a player with K+R v K+N losing on time actually occurred in one of the subsidiary events of the 2019 Irish Championship; FA Ivan Baburin made the correct ruling.
If there wasn't an increment, why wasn't the player with the Rook able to invoke 10.2 or one of its successors before the flag fell?
That is indeed the motivation of my queation. As Stewart says, just full information.Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:26 amIf there wasn't an increment, why wasn't the player with the Rook able to invoke 10.2 or one of its successors before the flag fell?
Possibly all sorts of things, that's why I asked.Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:27 amPossibly they were playing without either an increment, or quickplay finish rule.
Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:10 pmJohn McKenna WhIte HAD lost he right to play 0-0-0 because the position given us only had the R and K on the board. So it was now - or never.
We have glossed over the fact that the position was totally illegal anyway. There was no Black king on the board.
It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information.
Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:51 pm"It is one of the most common errors, not being given all the information."
You don't need that information - the issue is clear without it.
... Or TOUCHES the Ke1.E Michael White wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 pmThis law probably needs clarification after the law changes of Jan 2018 with regard to touch move...David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:56 pm9.2.2.2 ………………………………………………………………... The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.
SNIP
That being the case the player in this example loses the right to castle as soon as he touches the Ra1...
SNIP