| |
Main
Date: 29 Nov 2004 07:22:04
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
Rules question from National Chess Congress
In the National Chess Congress today the following situation arose.
Two players in the Under-1200 section have scores of 4-0 with two
rounds remaining. First prize is 1200.
Black makes move 15, capturing a pawn. White, upon seeing the move,
leaves the board and does not return for 35 minutes. When he gets
back, White instantly plays the killer move and the game is over two
moves later.
Black complains to the director, claiming that White probably went
somewhere and looked up the position on Fritz and came back and played
the move that Fritz recommended.
Several experts and masters look at the position and all of them feel
that the winning move White played was not difficult to find and so
the result stands.
Still, the behavior of White is suspicious. How would you rule?
Here is approximately the position:
r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
How would you rule? Is a warning to White enough or should he be
forfeited?
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2004 00:25:15
From: EDOOD
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
I think the players should be fitted with Catheters, and therefore have no
reason to leave the table. Or maybe open pit toilets in the hall, so that
the TD's can see that the player isn't using his Watch size PDA to put in
the position.
Unbelievable!!!!!!!!
|
| |
Date: 05 Dec 2004 11:20:51
From: Robert Leone
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
"I'm not proud of my conduct" dept.
I apologize for the extremely imprecise account, but this was a while
back.
Was playing at some tournament in the mid-1980's. Was round 4 or 5 of
a five or six round swiss, down in the U-1400 or u-1600 section.
Second round of the day, was playing a junior, whose whole family, it
seemed, was there. Game start somewhat late due to a dispute about
pairing colors -- family asked td to change opponent from black to
white, td had to tell them no, forget whether game was played under
protest. I opened lousy, material was even but my development was
backward and desperate while he had his queen patrolling my 3rd rank.
Meanwhile his whole family is sitting with player, and doing such fun
things as bringing him water and for that matter bringing me water
too, a nice gesture but one that annoyed me greatly. So I'm steamed,
mad, feeling abused and about to lose, then he makes a move that I can
instantly see I could counter with a discovered attack on the queen
that also threatens mate.
Instead of playing it right then, I go to the bathroom to let him stew
over his stinker. Come back about ten minutes later and played the
crusher.
I'm not proud of that, and it's one tiny reason why I no longer play
tournamament chess. The bigger ones are I stink at it (I think I
finally got my OTB rating over 1300 before I gave up) and I've got too
much else going on in my life.
Still, there are more reasons besides cheating for a player to leave a
game for a long time. They're not necessarily prettier, though.
Went back to crosstables later and noticed my opponent had white for
the majority of his games to that point -- having his having black and
my having white put us both at about 50-50 for the color split.
[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
SNIP
Robert Leone rleone[at]hotmail[dot]com
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 15:06:51
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
At 12:26 AM 11/29/2004 -0800, Greg Shahade wrote:
>
> 35 minutes in a last round game for $1200? Theres no
>way that should be allowed. If a player even thinks
>they have to leave that long in a big money round,
>they should get the approval of the director, or at
>least notify someone.
Actually, it was the next to last round. However, the principle is the
same. By winning this game, the offending player had a score of 5-0
and was in clear first place with one round to go. Even if he lost the
last game, he would still get a substantial prize. Even 5th prize was
$200.
I would say that it is almost certain that he did cheat. The position
on the board is critical. Bd3 involved the sacrifice of the exchange,
because Nxf2 forks the two rooks. It is not immediately clear that the
black king cannot escape somehow.
One does not walk away from the board and spend time talking to
friends with his clock running in this situation. Therefore, he must
have been cheating.
I think that everyone will agree that the probability that White did
cheat is high, probably at least 90%. The question is whether the
rules allow for the punishment of forfeiture without proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 09:36:01
From: Bruce Leverett
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> At 12:26 AM 11/29/2004 -0800, Greg Shahade wrote:
> >
> > 35 minutes in a last round game for $1200? Theres no
> >way that should be allowed. If a player even thinks
> >they have to leave that long in a big money round,
> >they should get the approval of the director, or at
> >least notify someone.
>
> Actually, it was the next to last round. However, the principle is the
> same. By winning this game, the offending player had a score of 5-0
> and was in clear first place with one round to go. Even if he lost the
> last game, he would still get a substantial prize. Even 5th prize was
> $200.
>
> I would say that it is almost certain that he did cheat. The position
> on the board is critical. Bd3 involved the sacrifice of the exchange,
> because Nxf2 forks the two rooks. It is not immediately clear that the
> black king cannot escape somehow.
>
> One does not walk away from the board and spend time talking to
> friends with his clock running in this situation. Therefore, he must
> have been cheating.
>
> I think that everyone will agree that the probability that White did
> cheat is high, probably at least 90%. The question is whether the
> rules allow for the punishment of forfeiture without proof beyond
> reasonable doubt.
You have it about backwards. Hypothetically, if someone disappeared
for 35 minutes and came back and played one semi-interesting move, I'd
be almost certain that they were not cheating. 10 minutes, maybe even
20 minutes, I'd think about it, but 35, they must have been doing
something else. Watching a basketball game? (We discussed that one
on this newsgroup about a decade ago.) Taking a phone call about a
family crisis? Who knows.
So essentially, even if you don't agree with Ken Sloan (and I do agree
with him, that this incident almost certainly did not happen as Sam
describes it), the whole argument is cockeyed. Cheating is just not
one of the plausible explanations. Therefore, people who care about
cheating should just back off. Go back to arguing about Crossville.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 10:51:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On 30 Nov 2004 09:36:01 -0800, [email protected] (Bruce
Leverett) wrote:
>You have it about backwards. Hypothetically, if someone disappeared
>for 35 minutes and came back and played one semi-interesting move, I'd
>be almost certain that they were not cheating. 10 minutes, maybe even
>20 minutes, I'd think about it, but 35, they must have been doing
>something else. Watching a basketball game? (We discussed that one
>on this newsgroup about a decade ago.) Taking a phone call about a
>family crisis? Who knows.
A few years ago, I'd have tended to agree with you. But, how long
does it take to (1) go back to the car, hotel-room, home, where ever,
(2) fire up the computer (3) load Fritz or something comparable, (4)
reconstruct the position in question and get the best move, and (5)
return to the tournament hall? Thirty-five minutes doesn't sound
outrageously excessive, IMO.
Of course, years ago, one could go off-site and set up a board and
analyze the position by moving the pieces (but a weaker player might
not gain all that much by so doing) or consult a strong player (but
weaker players don't necessarily have tight relationships with very
strong players -- certainly not players comparable to Fritz).
And that seems, to me, to be the nub of the problem. Nowadays, it's
so much *easier* to cheat and to cheat effectively.
>So essentially, even if you don't agree with Ken Sloan (and I do agree
>with him, that this incident almost certainly did not happen as Sam
>describes it), the whole argument is cockeyed.
The account of the incident provides a starting point for discussion
and is plausible, even if aspects of it turn out to be distorted.
>Cheating is just not
>one of the plausible explanations. Therefore, people who care about
>cheating should just back off. Go back to arguing about Crossville.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 21:34:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
> A few years ago, I'd have tended to agree with you. But, how long
> does it take to (1) go back to the car, hotel-room, home, where ever,
> (2) fire up the computer (3) load Fritz or something comparable, (4)
> reconstruct the position in question and get the best move, and (5)
> return to the tournament hall? Thirty-five minutes doesn't sound
> outrageously excessive, IMO.
There's "pocket fritz" now so any player (or their cohort) could do it in
the tournament hall.
The major problem now is that the cohort doesn't have to be an IM/GM for the
technique to work now.
The problem is so bad that it's one reason I wouldn't consider playing in an
OTB tournament until they guard against this type of problem.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 13:52:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:34:18 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> A few years ago, I'd have tended to agree with you. But, how long
>> does it take to (1) go back to the car, hotel-room, home, where ever,
>> (2) fire up the computer (3) load Fritz or something comparable, (4)
>> reconstruct the position in question and get the best move, and (5)
>> return to the tournament hall? Thirty-five minutes doesn't sound
>> outrageously excessive, IMO.
>There's "pocket fritz" now so any player (or their cohort) could do it in
>the tournament hall.
>The major problem now is that the cohort doesn't have to be an IM/GM for the
>technique to work now.
Exactly.
>The problem is so bad that it's one reason I wouldn't consider playing in an
>OTB tournament until they guard against this type of problem.
It doesn't seem to me that the problem is solvable, in any practical
way.
You can't stop players (many of 'em loaded up on coffee and other
caffeinated beverages) from using the restrooms in events with longer
time controls. You can't search everybody in a large open or class
tournament. And prohibiting spectators is counter-productive for other
reasons.
I think this is problem that's always been around, but is exacerbated
by the large class prizes and cheap computing devices that give every
player a GM-strength buddy, available for consultation on command.
Draconian penalties for cheaters that are actually caught in the act
might help. And, maybe, cut the absurdly high class prizes.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 23:07:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
>>There's "pocket fritz" now so any player (or their cohort) could do it in
>>the tournament hall.
>
>>The major problem now is that the cohort doesn't have to be an IM/GM for
>>the
>>technique to work now.
>
> Exactly.
>
>>The problem is so bad that it's one reason I wouldn't consider playing in
>>an
>>OTB tournament until they guard against this type of problem.
>
> It doesn't seem to me that the problem is solvable, in any practical
> way.
Not if no one cares.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 18:33:02
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
In article <237rd.2433$_C2.832@trndny01 >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >>There's "pocket fritz" now so any player (or their cohort) could do it in
> >>the tournament hall.
> >
> >>The major problem now is that the cohort doesn't have to be an IM/GM for
> >>the
> >>technique to work now.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> >>The problem is so bad that it's one reason I wouldn't consider playing in
> >>an
> >>OTB tournament until they guard against this type of problem.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me that the problem is solvable, in any practical
> > way.
>
> Not if no one cares.
So, you think no one cares about cheating? Go back and re-read this
thread.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 17:26:43
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:34:18 GMT, "Ray Gordon" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> A few years ago, I'd have tended to agree with you. But, how long
> >> does it take to (1) go back to the car, hotel-room, home, where ever,
> >> (2) fire up the computer (3) load Fritz or something comparable, (4)
> >> reconstruct the position in question and get the best move, and (5)
> >> return to the tournament hall? Thirty-five minutes doesn't sound
> >> outrageously excessive, IMO.
>
> >There's "pocket fritz" now so any player (or their cohort) could do it in
> >the tournament hall.
>
> >The major problem now is that the cohort doesn't have to be an IM/GM for the
> >technique to work now.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >The problem is so bad that it's one reason I wouldn't consider playing in an
> >OTB tournament until they guard against this type of problem.
>
> It doesn't seem to me that the problem is solvable, in any practical
> way.
>
> You can't stop players (many of 'em loaded up on coffee and other
> caffeinated beverages) from using the restrooms in events with longer
> time controls. You can't search everybody in a large open or class
> tournament. And prohibiting spectators is counter-productive for other
> reasons.
Yeah, he might get pissed off.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 06:46:21
From: Nick Hounsome
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think that everyone will agree that the probability that White did
> cheat is high, probably at least 90%. The question is whether the
> rules allow for the punishment of forfeiture without proof beyond
> reasonable doubt.
There you go again with the perjorative language.
How exactly do you work out 90%?
There is only one way to put a figure on it and that is to have done a study
involving lots of players and similar circumstances which is impossible.
Or perhaps you mean that 90% of a large sample (Probably just you) of people
think he cheated?
Of course if "everyone will agree" then you needn't have said it and could
have reserved your comments to the perfectly reasonable question of what the
rules are or should be.
Be careful what you write. If a newspaper wrote stuff like this they would
be sued.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 17:42:50
From: StanB
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One does not walk away from the board and spend time talking to
> friends with his clock running in this situation. Therefore, he must
> have been cheating.
You do if you're playing in the under 1200 section.
> I think that everyone will agree that the probability that White did
> cheat is high, probably at least 90%. The question is whether the
> rules allow for the punishment of forfeiture without proof beyond
> reasonable doubt.
You're wrong. The move was self-evident and by itself hardly turned the game
around.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 12:00:17
From: Nick Hounsome
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rules question from National Chess Congress
>
> In the National Chess Congress today the following situation arose.
> Two players in the Under-1200 section have scores of 4-0 with two
> rounds remaining. First prize is 1200.
>
> Black makes move 15, capturing a pawn. White, upon seeing the move,
> leaves the board and does not return for 35 minutes. When he gets
> back, White instantly plays the killer move and the game is over two
> moves later.
IMHO, and not claiming any great chess expertise, the wording of your post
is heavily loaded with a presumption of guilt. In particular the use of the
word "instantly" - 35 minutes is not instant by any reasonable definition of
the word. Having taken 35 minutes to discover (by fair means or foul) a
winning move, what do you expect the guy to do? Come back and twiddle his
thumbs for 5 minutes?
The guy took 35 minutes to find a winning move that 2 experts say is not
that hard to find. What's to be suspicious of?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 11:55:19
From: KidDon
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
"Nick Hounsome" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Rules question from National Chess Congress
> >
> > In the National Chess Congress today the following situation arose.
> > Two players in the Under-1200 section have scores of 4-0 with two
> > rounds remaining. First prize is 1200.
> >
> > Black makes move 15, capturing a pawn. White, upon seeing the move,
> > leaves the board and does not return for 35 minutes. When he gets
> > back, White instantly plays the killer move and the game is over two
> > moves later.
>
> IMHO, and not claiming any great chess expertise, the wording of your post
> is heavily loaded with a presumption of guilt. In particular the use of the
> word "instantly" - 35 minutes is not instant by any reasonable definition of
> the word. Having taken 35 minutes to discover (by fair means or foul) a
> winning move, what do you expect the guy to do? Come back and twiddle his
> thumbs for 5 minutes?
> The guy took 35 minutes to find a winning move that 2 experts say is not
> that hard to find. What's to be suspicious of?
________________________________
This was an U1200 section, so it is unlikely the player was able to
think out the winning move on his own away from the Board (unless he
was an underrated OTB beginner or seriously sandbagging). The winning
move may have been easy for 2 experts to find, but U1200 is a far cry
from expert. I would be suspicious as well -- but the losing player
should have complained to the TD when his opponent was away for 20 min
or so, which may have led to something. But once he waited not only
for 35 minutes, but also waited until he lost, it was, IMO, too late
to do anything more than what was done in this case.
kiddon
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 11:17:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
I've said before that unless you restrict the playing area, this is going to
happen.
I won't play in an OTB tournament for that reason.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 12:03:56
From: Greg Wren
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
Lacking evidence, "presumed guilty until proven innocent" is pretty harsh.
(After all, the person had a winning move before taking a break.) Yes, 35
minutes is a long time (!), impolite and inconsiderate - still (?!) lacking
evidence of cheating, perhaps the "winner" just wanted to rub it in (dumb).
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 19:58:43
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
> Lacking evidence, "presumed guilty until proven innocent" is pretty harsh.
> (After all, the person had a winning move before taking a break.) Yes, 35
> minutes is a long time (!), impolite and inconsiderate - still (?!)
> lacking evidence of cheating, perhaps the "winner" just wanted to rub it
> in (dumb).
He created doubt where there was no need for it.
Why leave the board for 35 minutes only to come back and play the winning
move when one could just be done with the game and not arouse suspicion?
In the computer era, letting players leave the tournament area during a game
is madness. The best thing players can do is simply refuse to play until
they change the rules.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 15:24:50
From: sandirhodes
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
I played in a National Open in the 80s. It was the reserve section. It was the last round. I was on board 3, playing for a class
B prize, since one of the other boards would end up 6-0, and I had had a draw earlier.
A loss meant no money, a win 5 or 6 hundred.
I had a great attack as Black in a K's Indian. I infiltrated with my queen, and thought it was over. Then it hit me ... he could
retreat a piece, attacking my Q, and there were no escape squares! The game was lost for me!
He made the move. Sigh.
With my clock ticking, I got up, stepped into the hall, and started beating my head against the wall. A friend came up and asked me
how it was going. I replied that I was about to go back and resign. After the custoy condolences, I went to the bathroom. I
smoked a cigarette. I beat my head against the wall again. I was gone about 20 minutes.
I went back in and sat down. Figured I'd take one more look at the board, the let it go. To my amazement, I immediately saw a
saving resource, and a powerful one at that. I played the move.
My opponent resigned; his position was lost.
The scenario related earlier in this thread, therefore to me at least, becomes plausibly legit. Reasonable doubt, I think they call
it. So the matter depends on proof. I don't think computers were that advanced back then, nor concealable.
sandirhodes
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:TbLqd.2030$_C2.1768@trndny01...
> > Lacking evidence, "presumed guilty until proven innocent" is pretty harsh.
> > (After all, the person had a winning move before taking a break.) Yes, 35
> > minutes is a long time (!), impolite and inconsiderate - still (?!)
> > lacking evidence of cheating, perhaps the "winner" just wanted to rub it
> > in (dumb).
>
> He created doubt where there was no need for it.
>
> Why leave the board for 35 minutes only to come back and play the winning
> move when one could just be done with the game and not arouse suspicion?
>
> In the computer era, letting players leave the tournament area during a game
> is madness. The best thing players can do is simply refuse to play until
> they change the rules.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 19:53:06
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
In article <MsMqd.102637$tU4.57042@okepread06 >,
"sandirhodes" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The scenario related earlier in this thread, therefore to me at least,
> becomes plausibly legit. Reasonable doubt, I think they call
> it. So the matter depends on proof. I don't think computers were that
> advanced back then, nor concealable.
>
There is of course reasonable doubt: both scenarios--cheating and not
cheating--are plausible. However, I agree that he time has come for
making a rule that you can't leave the hall while your game is in
progess, especially under shorter time controls. They could also arrange
for chaperones if people have "emergencies."
The fact is, there are too many situations like this where there is at
least the appearance of impropriety. This is due to the fact that, as
Scott Adams has observed in a recent book, people are weasels.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 17:48:53
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:53:06 -0500, Harold Buck
<[email protected] > wrote:
>In article <MsMqd.102637$tU4.57042@okepread06>,
> "sandirhodes" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The scenario related earlier in this thread, therefore to me at least,
>> becomes plausibly legit. Reasonable doubt, I think they call
>> it. So the matter depends on proof. I don't think computers were that
>> advanced back then, nor concealable.
>There is of course reasonable doubt: both scenarios--cheating and not
>cheating--are plausible. However, I agree that he time has come for
>making a rule that you can't leave the hall while your game is in
>progess, especially under shorter time controls. They could also arrange
>for chaperones if people have "emergencies."
Or, all tournament halls must have bathrooms attached.
>The fact is, there are too many situations like this where there is at
>least the appearance of impropriety. This is due to the fact that, as
>Scott Adams has observed in a recent book, people are weasels.
The cheater could get information verbally from a non-participant.
Currently, you can't discuss the game in progress, but how could this
possibly be monitored? So, we'd have to forbid *any* conversations
while a game was in progress.
Sadly, all this tend to make a tournament much less enjoyable.
>--Harold Buck
>
>
>"I used to rock and roll all night,
> and party every day.
> Then it was every other day. . . ."
> -Homer J. Simpson
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 22:15:39
From: Harold Buck
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
In article <[email protected] >,
Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >There is of course reasonable doubt: both scenarios--cheating and not
> >cheating--are plausible. However, I agree that he time has come for
> >making a rule that you can't leave the hall while your game is in
> >progess, especially under shorter time controls. They could also arrange
> >for chaperones if people have "emergencies."
>
> Or, all tournament halls must have bathrooms attached.
>
Well, and some way to make sure people don't take cell phones, books,
PDAs, etc. into them.
> >The fact is, there are too many situations like this where there is at
> >least the appearance of impropriety. This is due to the fact that, as
> >Scott Adams has observed in a recent book, people are weasels.
>
> The cheater could get information verbally from a non-participant.
> Currently, you can't discuss the game in progress, but how could this
> possibly be monitored? So, we'd have to forbid *any* conversations
> while a game was in progress.
>
> Sadly, all this tend to make a tournament much less enjoyable.
Yeah, but feeling like you got screwed because you think your opponent
cheated makes tournaments less enjoyable as well.
Realistically, it's going to be hard to keep people from getting up and
leaving the room for time controls greater than G/60, and even that's a
long time if the game goes to the end. Short time controls with a short
increment would probably work best.
--Harold Buck
"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 10:37:43
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
> Here is approximately the position:
>
> r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
>
> In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
> and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
> Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
> Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
>
> How would you rule? Is a warning to White enough or should he be
> forfeited?
>
> Sam Sloan
This position is not legal, ... please check!
|
| | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 18:38:50
From: Jud McCranie
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:37:43 +0100, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:
>This position is not legal, ... please check!
Black's king and rook must be reversed.
---
Replace you know what by j to email
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 13:28:58
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:37:43 +0100, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> Here is approximately the position:
>>
>> r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
>>
>> In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
>> and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
>> Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
>> Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
>>
>> How would you rule? Is a warning to White enough or should he be
>> forfeited?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>This position is not legal, ... please check!
I do not see anything illegal about this position. In any case, I do
not claim that this is the exact position, but it is very close.
The opening moves were 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd3 This did
not look like a book opening, so I doubt that the offending player
consulted a book during his long absence from the board.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 09:10:51
From: Peter Billam
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
In article <[email protected] >, Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> The opening moves were 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd3 This did
> not look like a book opening, so I doubt that the offending player
> consulted a book during his long absence from the board.
>
That's a great opening, one of the most underestimated anti-sicilians.
White aims to set up a cozy Bind; I call it the Forced cozy.
It should continue something like
1. e4 c5 2. d4 cd4 3. Qxd4 Nc6 4. Qd3 g6 5. c4 Bg7 6. Nc3 d6 7. Nf3 Nf6
8. Be2 (or Be3) O-O 9. O-O Bg4!? (ideas ..Rc8 ..Bxf3 ..Ne5) and now
10. Bg5 or 10. Be3 or 10. Rd1 and lots of people would prefer White ...
Polugajevski covers this line in his "Sizilianisch - Morra Gambit bis
Scheveninger System", Sportsverlag Berlin 1987.
--
Regards, Peter
Peter Billam, DPIWE/ILS/CIT/Servers, hbt/lnd/l8, 6233 3061
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Nov 2004 18:50:37
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
I'm a latecomer to this thread but I have to say...
What's so supiscious about Bd3? This is not a tactic which is beyond the
capacity of a 1200 player to see. In fact, I think MOST 1200 players
would find the Ng5 idea very quickly IF they knew there was a win on the
board.
So there are two possibilities:
Either the 1200 recognizes there's a win on the board -- in which case,
why does he need his computer to help him find it? The whole idea is a
very simple, thematic removal-of-the-defender.
But if the 1200-rated player doesn't recognize the win, why's he running
off to set up his computer? 35 minutes is far too much to invest if all
you reasonably expect is a +/=.
Furthermore, it seems like the player probably saw the basic elements of
the combination before playing Nd5. On something other than Nxe4 he was
prbably planning Nxf6 followed by Ng5. (Why else would you play Nd5
here?)
I don't know how it's possible to stop people from cheating if they
really want to. Get fritz on a palm pilot or pocketPC and go to the
bathroom. Sit on the john and process away. I fully concede that it's a
real risk, and I'm not sure what the solution is.
But I think it's almost absurd to think this is an clear example of
cheating.
-Ron
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 14:54:40
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
En/na Sam Sloan ha escrit:
>>>Here is approximately the position:
>>>
>>>r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
>>>
>>>In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
>>>and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
>>>Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
>>>Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
>>
>>This position is not legal, ... please check!
> I do not see anything illegal about this position. In any case, I do
> not claim that this is the exact position, but it is very close.
When a player is under check, HE can not move a knight having his own
king in prise.
Tha mean "...Nxe4 is an ILLEGAL move"
> Sam Sloan
AT
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 12:55:49
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:37:43 +0100, Antonio Torrecillas
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> Here is approximately the position:
>>
>> r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
>>
>> In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
>> and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
>> Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
>> Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
>>
>> How would you rule? Is a warning to White enough or should he be
>> forfeited?
>>
>This position is not legal, ... please check!
Reverse the king and rook. As to Bd3, it seems quite natural to me.
Absent any other evidence of cheating, I'd say the loser has no case.
--
King's Gambit - http://kingsgambit.blogspot.com
Chess problems, tactics, analysis and more.
|
| |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 00:08:00
From: Duncan Oxley
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
Sam,
Why don't you ask the TD?
He or she has the final word.
Duncan
"Sam Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rules question from National Chess Congress
>
> In the National Chess Congress today the following situation arose.
> Two players in the Under-1200 section have scores of 4-0 with two
> rounds remaining. First prize is 1200.
>
> Black makes move 15, capturing a pawn. White, upon seeing the move,
> leaves the board and does not return for 35 minutes. When he gets
> back, White instantly plays the killer move and the game is over two
> moves later.
>
> Black complains to the director, claiming that White probably went
> somewhere and looked up the position on Fritz and came back and played
> the move that Fritz recommended.
>
> Several experts and masters look at the position and all of them feel
> that the winning move White played was not difficult to find and so
> the result stands.
>
> Still, the behavior of White is suspicious. How would you rule?
>
> Here is approximately the position:
>
> r1bq1kr1/4pp1p/p1np2pQ/1p1N4/4n3/5N2/PPP2PPP/2KR1B1R
>
> In this position, Black has just played Nxe4. White leaves the board
> and returns 35 minutes later and instantly plays Bd3. Black responds
> Nf6 and now White plays Ng5 winning because the threat of Nxf6 exf6
> Nxh7# mate is unstoppable.
>
> How would you rule? Is a warning to White enough or should he be
> forfeited?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| | |
Date: 29 Nov 2004 13:22:02
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: Rules Question from National Chess Congress
|
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:00 -0800, "Duncan Oxley" <no@thanks > wrote:
>Sam,
>
>Why don't you ask the TD?
>
>He or she has the final word.
>
>Duncan
The TD was asked, of course. That is how this came up. First Steve
Immitt, the TD of this particular section, was asked. Then, two other
TDs were consulted for their opinion. All agreed that the only thing
that could be done was ask the offending player where he was and then
give him a warning about this behavior. In view of the large amount of
money at involved, the only meaningful penalty would have been a
forfeiture.
Sam Sloan
|
|
