Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 02:11 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rules Question from National Chess Congress


You're wrong. The move was self-evident and by itself hardly turned the game
around.


So he should get away scott free just because the move is self-evident? If the
evidence points to a rule infraction deserving a penalty, then he should be
penalized no matter what the move on the board accomplished.

There is a distiction between unsolicited advise and solicited advise. If the
player had walked to the bathroom and a spectator told him the obvious move,
then no penalty other than kicking the spectator out of the room.

Grant Perks
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 02:33 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"GrantPerks" wrote in message
...

You're wrong. The move was self-evident and by itself hardly turned the
game
around.


So he should get away scott free just because the move is self-evident? If
the
evidence points to a rule infraction deserving a penalty, then he should
be
penalized no matter what the move on the board accomplished.


The point is there is no evidence other than some 1200 player won his
section and he wandered off and came back and made the obvious move. What
about the other games? Did he wander off and come back and make a move? Did
he wander off for 45 minutes several times a game and come back and make the
obvious move? I just don't see that wandering off and making the obvious
move is any kind of evidence. Not even circumstantial.



  #3   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 03:34 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The point is there is no evidence other than some 1200 player won his
section and he wandered off and came back and made the obvious move. What
about the other games? Did he wander off and come back and make a move? Did
he wander off for 45 minutes several times a game and come back and make the
obvious move? I just don't see that wandering off and making the obvious
move is any kind of evidence. Not even circumstantial.


Players are not allowed to leave the game for periods of time longer than 15
minutes without first notifying the TD. Since the player in question was gone
for well over twice this period of time, he should be penalized. Even without
evidence that he used his PDA in the stall, he brings doubt to any defense
since he was on the clock prior to his leaving the board.

Grant Perks
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 04:45 AM
Kenneth Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ojunk (GrantPerks) writes:


The point is there is no evidence other than some 1200 player won his
section and he wandered off and came back and made the obvious move. What
about the other games? Did he wander off and come back and make a move? Did
he wander off for 45 minutes several times a game and come back and make the
obvious move? I just don't see that wandering off and making the obvious
move is any kind of evidence. Not even circumstantial.


Players are not allowed to leave the game for periods of time longer than 15
minutes without first notifying the TD. Since the player in question was gone
for well over twice this period of time


Excuse me. Where and when was this "fact" established? Are you taking
the word of Sam Sloan? of the opponent?

If a player wanders off, it's up to the opponent to alert a floor TD -
who should "put a clock" on the absent player. I've done this a number
of times - usually waiting until the player has been absent for 5-10
minutes.

The current controversy has the smell of the usual "after the game"
complaint, usually cooked up not by the player involved, but by his
parent, coach, or teammate. Since the complaint comes after the game
is over, the correct thing for the TD to do is to say "The game is over;
there's nothing I can (or *should*) do about it".


, he should be penalized.


After the game? Based on testimony from Sam Sloan? Would you not, at
the very least, like to hear the other player's side of the story?

Even without
evidence that he used his PDA in the stall, he brings doubt to any defense
since he was on the clock prior to his leaving the board.


And you know this...how? Oh, yeah - Sam Sloan said so.

When you look up "gullible", you see a picture of:


Grant Perks


--
Kenneth Sloan

Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 11:56 AM
GrantPerks
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Excuse me. Where and when was this "fact" established? Are you taking
the word of Sam Sloan? of the opponent?


As I first stated when responding to ChessDon who said he would forfeit the
opponent, there wasn't enough information here to know how to act with regard
to the actual situation.



If a player wanders off, it's up to the opponent to alert a floor TD -
who should "put a clock" on the absent player. I've done this a number
of times - usually waiting until the player has been absent for 5-10
minutes.


Again, I was responding to stated facts that the player had left the game after
seeing his opponent's move. Of course, if there is no evidence that the player
left for a period of time greater than 15 minutes, there should be no penalty.
But, in the limited facts as stated by Sam, a few experts and masters reviewed
the position in question. Therefore, there is some indication that Sam was
correct about the player having at least aroused suspicion.


The current controversy has the smell of the usual "after the game"
complaint, usually cooked up not by the player involved, but by his
parent, coach, or teammate. Since the complaint comes after the game
is over, the correct thing for the TD to do is to say "The game is over;
there's nothing I can (or *should*) do about it".

Agreed. There would be no need to call over experts to evaluate the likelyhood
that the novice would find the winning move.



, he should be penalized.


After the game? Based on testimony from Sam Sloan? Would you not, at
the very least, like to hear the other player's side of the story?

No, not after the game. Absolutely not based on Sam Sloan's word alone. Of
course, I wouldn't rule without hearing both sides. But, if it was established
that he was gone for an unaccountable long period of time, then he should be
penalized.

Even without
evidence that he used his PDA in the stall, he brings doubt to any defense
since he was on the clock prior to his leaving the board.


And you know this...how? Oh, yeah - Sam Sloan said so.


I don't think I need to preface every sentence with a statement that the source
is at best questionable.

When you look up "gullible", you see a picture of:


Grant Perks



Oh yell. I bet I can bluff better at no-limit than:

--
Kenneth Sloan


Grant Perks



  #6   Report Post  
Old November 30th 04, 03:05 PM
mio
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.ardice.com/Arts/Movies/Titles/1/15_Minutes
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USCF Catalogue Remainers ASCACHESS rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 May 13th 04 07:46 AM
Lev Khariton: With Love and Bitterness Aryeh Davidoff rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 May 6th 04 05:56 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 February 1st 04 08:44 AM
Opinions on "The Chess Artist: Genius, Obsession, and the World's Oldest Game", by J.C. Hallman Isidor Gunsberg rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 9th 03 05:59 PM
A FLASHBACK WITHOUT REGRETS - by Lev Khariton tomic rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 July 15th 03 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017