| |
Main
Date: 25 Dec 2008 15:17:00
From: Offramp
Subject: An old FIDE rule
|
In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
FIDE rules.
The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
1. is ambiguous, or
2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
establish, or
3. is illegal.
"The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
its true significance is impossible to establish."
When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
forfeited!
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2008 17:45:45
From: The Horny Goat
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:17:00 -0800 (PST), Offramp
<[email protected] > wrote:
>In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
>FIDE rules.
>The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
>http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
>but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
>
>A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
>lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
>1. is ambiguous, or
>2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
>establish, or
>3. is illegal.
>
>"The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
>its true significance is impossible to establish."
>
>When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
>that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
>forfeited!
Of course then there's the case where the player seals without
remembering to insert his scoresheet! I have even heard of one case
where the opponent resigned without opening the envelope - and nearly
fell off his chair when he realized it was an empty envelope! Since he
had validly resigned, the fate of the envelope was considered
irrelevant....
Lyle Craver
International Arbiter
|
| |
Date: 28 Dec 2008 12:47:38
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
On Dec 25, 4:17=A0pm, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
> FIDE rules.
> The section about adjourned games is hardly used any morehttp://www.chess=
11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
> but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
> A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
> lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
> 1. is ambiguous, or
> 2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
> establish, or
> 3. is illegal.
> "The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
> its true significance is impossible to establish."
> When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
> that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
> forfeited!
No, in that case you simply have to make that move. If it is
impossible to determine which move you have committed to make, then
the device of the sealed move, to equalize both players' positions
with regard to analysis, is negated.
So you forfeit if your handwriting is too messy. Understand the
*purpose* of a sealed move, then you understand the *purpose* of the
rules surrounding it, and you know how to interpret them.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2008 19:55:09
From:
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
Offramp wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:50=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> > Offramp wrote:
> > > In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
> > > FIDE rules.
> > > The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
> > >http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
> > > but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
> >
> > > A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game i=
s
> > > lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
> > > 1. is ambiguous, or
> > > 2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
> > > establish, or
> > > 3. is illegal.
> >
> > > "The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
> > > its true significance is impossible to establish."
> >
> > > When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
> > > that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
> > > forfeited!
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing your point. That's exactly what it meant.
> > Otherwise a player could seal a meaningless move, then analyze
> > overnight to find the right move.
>
> I think the important part is the phrase, "is recorded such that..."
> It means that you could not seal an unreadable scribble.
> But I originally thought that it meant that if the sealed move was
> readable but totally irrelevant, then you could lose the game.
It means both. If a player seals something that is not clearly
identifiable as a legal move in the position (whether it's an
ambiguous move, an impossible move, or an inkblot), he loses the game.
Of course, this doesn't come up much any more.
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2008 19:04:02
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
On Dec 26, 11:50=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Offramp wrote:
> > In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
> > FIDE rules.
> > The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
> >http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
> > but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
>
> > A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
> > lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
> > 1. is ambiguous, or
> > 2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
> > establish, or
> > 3. is illegal.
>
> > "The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
> > its true significance is impossible to establish."
>
> > When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
> > that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
> > forfeited!
>
> Perhaps I'm missing your point. That's exactly what it meant.
> Otherwise a player could seal a meaningless move, then analyze
> overnight to find the right move.
I think the important part is the phrase, "is recorded such that..."
It means that you could not seal an unreadable scribble.
But I originally thought that it meant that if the sealed move was
readable but totally irrelevant, then you could lose the game.
|
| |
Date: 26 Dec 2008 15:50:10
From:
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
Offramp wrote:
> In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
> FIDE rules.
> The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
> http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
> but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
>
> A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
> lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
> 1. is ambiguous, or
> 2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
> establish, or
> 3. is illegal.
>
> "The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
> its true significance is impossible to establish."
>
> When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
> that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
> forfeited!
Perhaps I'm missing your point. That's exactly what it meant.
Otherwise a player could seal a meaningless move, then analyze
overnight to find the right move.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Dec 2008 17:52:41
From: The Horny Goat
Subject: Re: An old FIDE rule
|
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:50:10 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
>Offramp wrote:
>> In another thread JMVW drw my attention to a site that has all the
>> FIDE rules.
>> The section about adjourned games is hardly used any more
>> http://www.chess11.com/Adjourned%20Games.php
>> but there was one rule that always puzzled me:
>>
>> A8. Except in the cases mentioned in Article 6.10 and 9.6, the game is
>> lost by a player whose recording of his sealed move
>> 1. is ambiguous, or
>> 2. is recorded such that its true significance is impossible to
>> establish, or
>> 3. is illegal.
>>
>> "The game is lost by a player whose sealed move is recorded such that
>> its true significance is impossible to establish."
>>
>> When I first read that I thought it meant that if you sealed a move
>> that had no meaning, a totally irrelevant move, then you would be
>> forfeited!
>
>
>Perhaps I'm missing your point. That's exactly what it meant.
>Otherwise a player could seal a meaningless move, then analyze
>overnight to find the right move.
That's precisely what the rule means. Similarly there are all KINDS of
positions where the "right" move is (for example) Rd1 - but which one?
The rook on a1 or the rook on f1?
Allowing ambiguous moves like that allows the player to analyse at
home and figure out the correct answer before resumption.
On the other hand, there was a case where the board was turned around
the wrong way (conceded by both players) and the black king on c6
moved to e4. Since both conceded that the board (with letters and
numbers on the side) was reversed, I ruled Kd5 was CLEARLY meant (and
not at all ambiguous under points 1 and 2) and continued the game from
there. Without both players agreeing about the board I would have
ruled under point 3.
It's stuff like these that make me glad sudden death time controls (or
alternately a time delay control after the first two have been made)
are now the norm.
Lyle Craver
International Arbiter
|
|
