Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61

Thread: Chess Victoria Blitz Championship 2016: FIDE rating

  1. | #46
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ...
    If an annoying action is prevented by the rules as correctly interpreted then it is illegal even if only done once. If an annoying action is authorised by the rules then it is not generally illegal no matter how many times it occurs, or what combination of multiple annoying but authorised actions occurs.

    ....
    In a straw poll, the CV Executive was split 50-50 on this point.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  2. | #47
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    In a straw poll, the CV Executive was split 50-50 on this point.
    If that straw poll was in specific relevance to moving after the opponent has moved but before the opponent has pressed their clock then the 50% who took your position are simply wrong. FIDE has repeatedly found - including in the RC's recent ruling - that requiring the player to wait for their opponent to complete the move would create problems, and these problems would be much the same if the prohibition covered every instance of the behaviour bar the first as if it covered every instance.

    It would seem to me that your comments on this forum imply a danger of the next Victorian Blitz being not run according to the FIDE Laws of Chess and that the NRO would be entitled to seek commitments that this nonsense will cease prior to accepting preregistration of the event for FIDE rating.

    As it is completely obvious that you are "Poet Hire@", who in #25 effectively accused a leading IM ("THE MAN B") of being "a hustler" for no reason other than that he behaved as allowed by the Laws of Chess, I should comment on some of the examples there.

    Saying "check" even once in a serious tournament game is an annoyance and the arbiters are entitled to consider it illegal and respond with a warning immediately.

    Regarding "j'adoube", the purpose of the rule is to allow for the adjustment of misplaced pieces. If an opponent is repeatedly significantly misplacing pieces then one can reasonably adjust them as often as one likes, although in the interests of not disturbing other players it would be better to complain to the arbiter about the opponent's persistent sloppy piece placement. If a piece is correctly placed then even a single "j'adoube" could be an unfair distraction.

    If you have an issue with the current Laws of Chess - which really seems to be what the problem is here (you are trying to bend the Laws to say what you want them to say and not what they actually do) - then you can put in a submission to FIDE to change them and FIDE will consider it in the next cycle to come into effect from mid-2021. (You missed the boat for mid-2017 - those were discussed in Baku Sep 2016.) The form is available here: http://rules.fide.com/ You can even decide whether to seek the support of your Federation for the proposed change or not, and indicate accordingly.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 10-03-17 at 01:30 PM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  3. | #48
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    If that straw poll was in specific relevance to moving after the opponent has moved but before the opponent has pressed their clock then the 50% who took your position are simply wrong. FIDE has repeatedly found - including in the RC's recent ruling - that requiring the player to wait for their opponent to complete the move would create problems, and these problems would be much the same if the prohibition covered every instance of the behaviour bar the first as if it covered every instance.
    All 6 voting were aware of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    It would seem to me that your comments on this forum imply a danger of the next Victorian Blitz being not run according to the FIDE Laws of Chess and that the NRO would be entitled to seek commitments that this nonsense will cease prior to accepting preregistration of the event for FIDE rating.
    Well, you are the psephologist, and I leave it to you to move from 50-50 to wherever you want to extrapolate.

    ...


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Saying "check" even once in a serious tournament game is an annoyance and the arbiters are entitled to consider it illegal and respond with a warning immediately.
    We did not have a straw poll on that one.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Regarding "j'adoube", the purpose of the rule is to allow for the adjustment of misplaced pieces. If an opponent is repeatedly significantly misplacing pieces then one can reasonably adjust them as often as one likes, although in the interests of not disturbing other players it would be better to complain to the arbiter about the opponent's persistent sloppy piece placement. If a piece is correctly placed then even a single "j'adoube" could be an unfair distraction.
    And no poll on this one either.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    If you have an issue with the current Laws of Chess - which really seems to be what the problem is here (you are trying to bend the Laws to say what you want them to say and not what they actually do) - then you can put in a submission to FIDE to change them and FIDE will consider it in the next cycle to come into effect from mid-2021. (You missed the boat for mid-2017 - those were discussed in Baku Sep 2016.) The form is available here: http://rules.fide.com/
    The straw poll indicates that the issue is with an interpretation of the current laws of chess. Your link to http://rules.fide.com/ will be useful whichever of the interpretations wins the next straw poll.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You can even decide whether to seek the support of your Federation for the proposed change or not, and indicate accordingly.
    Would we go it alone?
    Just a hypothetical at this stage.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  4. | #49
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Well, you are the psephologist, and I leave it to you to move from 50-50 to wherever you want to extrapolate.
    Well, the possibility in theory is CV voting on a motion to run the tournament in a manner contrary to the Laws of Chess at a meeting at which one or more of the three who actually understand the Laws are absent.

    Whether the others would actually be that silly, given the chance, is outside my expertise.

    The straw poll indicates that the issue is with an interpretation of the current laws of chess.
    No. Firstly the CA created (or announced) one "interpretation" to try to outlaw a practice that was allowed under the Laws of Chess; that attempt was rejected by the ACF and by FIDE.

    Now you (singular at least) are trying to come up with another one even though FIDE's most recent ruling has effectively pre-rejected it.

    Calling this a debate about interpretation is a teach-the-controversy tactic. Interpretation is about what one reasonably thinks something means and not what one wishes it meant although it clearly doesn't. There can be legitimate differences of interpretation of the Laws; this isn't one of them.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 11-03-17 at 08:43 AM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  5. | #50
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ...



    No. Firstly the CA created (or announced) one "interpretation" to try to outlaw a practice that was allowed under the Laws of Chess;
    Well, hardly the first, given that the distraction issue of player B moving before player A has pressed his clock had been discussed in the past by FIDE. <And FIDE had found difficulty in wording an antidote>.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    that attempt was rejected by the ACF and by FIDE.
    <And in FIDE case because of the previous fail in wording an antidote>.



    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Now you (singular at least) are trying to come up with another one ...
    I seem to recall fg7 listing other folk in other countries also regeristering the 'distraction' issue; so, not so singular.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  6. | #51
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Well, hardly the first, given that the distraction issue of player B moving before player A has pressed his clock had been discussed in the past by FIDE. <And FIDE had found difficulty in wording an antidote>.
    Firstly this is a load of rubbish; yes, FIDE discussions about possibly changing it have been referenced in the debate, but they were not on account of it supposedly being an instance of the distraction rule. And the decision made, repeatedly, was not to change it.

    Secondly your approach here is that since FIDE have decided not to change the rule at every one of those discussions, you have decided that you don't accept that and will find some way to change it for them. It is a contemptible disregard for FIDE's authority over the laws of chess but what else would we expect from a Tornelo-class arbiter.

    I seem to recall fg7 listing other folk in other countries also regeristering the 'distraction' issue; so, not so singular.
    Other country (singular), and one where arbiters are often not familiar with the FIDE Laws of Chess because they have their own. And even then they did not claim it as an example of the distraction rule.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  7. | #52
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ....; yes, FIDE discussions about possibly changing it have been referenced in the debate,
    You may want to think that the central argument is whether to call the issue
    • distraction by B
    • rudeness by B
    • hustling by B
    • bullying by B

    but it remains clear that FIDE have addressed an issue where some chess communities have fed back that they are unhappy with the rule, whatever the infraction gets called.
    That is, there is an unease with the current interpretation of the rule, and with the blanket exception that it is OK once for B to move before A has pressed the clock.

    And it remains clear that FIDE has a problem finding the words to govern this practice better.

    So far, in the evolution of the rules, the solution has not been found.

    Sooner or later someone will sort this live issue out.
    It is obviously not just an Australian issue.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  8. | #53
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    You may want to think that the central argument is whether to call the issue
    [LIST][*]distraction by B [*]rudeness by B [*]hustling by B[*]bullying by B
    Anyone who thinks it is bullying should ban themselves from the internet for life.

    There is a significant difference between these descriptors in that there is a "distraction" rule, which I have shown does not apply. There is no rule that seeks to regulate so-called rudeness, hustling or bullying (except the disrepute rule in very serious cases).

    but it remains clear that FIDE have addressed an issue where some chess communities have fed back that they are unhappy with the rule, whatever the infraction gets called.
    It is not an infraction at all until they (FIDE) decide it is. There are many rules that some people are not happy with that have not been changed. At one FIDE General Assembly there was a very lengthy session of pointless grandstanding by one delegate calling for draw offers to be completely banned. He received a huge round of applause. Yet draw offers are not banned.

    That is, there is an unease with the current interpretation of the rule, and with the blanket exception that it is OK once for B to move before A has pressed the clock.
    "Blanket exception"? This once-but-not-repeatedly nonsense is something that hasn't been suggested to FIDE in any of the discussions you refer to. It's just something you or someone else on CV has made up that has no demonstrated support beyond that level.

    And it remains clear that FIDE has a problem finding the words to govern this practice better.
    It is not about words. It is about alternatives and their consequences. The consequences of banning the practice - particularly, that if it is banned players can try to con their opponent into breaking the rules by deliberately not pressing the clock immediately - are much worse than the practice itself.

    So far, in the evolution of the rules, the solution has not been found.
    You're presuming one exists. Anyway, until it has been found CV has a duty to abide by what the rules are now. Lobby the Rules Commission to change the Laws if you have a proposal.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 13-03-17 at 12:00 AM.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  9. | #54
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,008

    Thumbs down More of Kevin's Infallible Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Anyone who thinks it is bullying should ban themselves from the internet for life.
    So ... if someone disagrees with you about something, then they should ban themselves from the internet for life?

    Yeah ... right ... that makes a lot of sense.

    Ironically I suspect if you would ban yourself from the internet even for a month or two, you'd learn to appreciate the finer things in life, and possibly would choose never to return to your failed chess forum and its ever decreasing popularity.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  10. | #55
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    [FONT=Georgia]So ... if someone disagrees with you about something, then they should ban themselves from the internet for life?
    If you really think I was saying that, rather than what I actually said, then you should ban yourself from the internet for life too.

    Ironically I suspect if you would ban yourself from the internet even for a month or two, you'd learn to appreciate the finer things in life, and possibly would choose never to return to your failed chess forum and its ever decreasing popularity.
    Well the Alanis meter is well and truly malfunctioning here. The above sentence was written by someone whose own so-called forum recently went four days without attracting a single post! Yet you still keep coming back to it, each time more cluelessly than the last, because you will never get over your grudge with CC for deservedly banning you.

    You know that you should shut it down, but you will never do so, because you would concede that we were right.
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  11. | #56
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,008

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    ... because you will never get over your grudge with CC for deservedly banning you.
    Grudge? I'm still doing cart wheels I'm so thrilled about having been banned. Basically I got kicked out of a dumpster, and things kept getting better and better as a result, culminating in the birth of this wonderful place.

    That, of course, was never your intention. But its what happened.
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  12. | #57
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    791

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    [FONT=Georgia]Grudge? I'm still doing cart wheels I'm so thrilled about having been banned.
    Ah that's why you have whined and whined about how unfair it supposedly was, and made up total lies about me supposedly threatening to resign to get rid of you. Anyone who cares can see right through your nonsense.

    That, of course, was never your intention.
    It was never even my decision.

    You started this site because Sweeney's site was a failure. But its activity level was still much more than this place's now!
    Note: I have poster antichrist on ignore. On no account should anyone assume that I agree with, or am unable to refute, any comment by poster antichrist, simply because I have not responded to it. Chances are I have not even seen it. (NB Quoting posts by antichrist to try to get around this issue will mostly be ineffective). I am also sometimes denied the ability of reply to false accusations in the shoutbox.

  13. | #58
    Senior Member CarrierPigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Flying All Over The Place
    Posts
    138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Well, hardly the first, given that the distraction issue of player B moving before player A has pressed his clock had been discussed in the past by FIDE. <And FIDE had found difficulty in wording an antidote>.




    <And in FIDE case because of the previous fail in wording an antidote>.






    I seem to recall fg7 listing other folk in other countries also registering the 'distraction' issue; so, not so singular.
    Quote Originally Posted by by Kevin Bonham on chesschat
    Indeed it might be further argued that since an illegal move cannot be made before it is completed, then the statement that moving with both hands shall be treated as an illegal move means it must also be treated in the same way, and therefore defaulting a player for "making" a move with two hands (when they have not even pressed the clock) is just wrong.

    As the wording is so dreadfully unclear I think it is worth considering the purpose of the rule. The main purpose is to prevent players gaining an unfair advantage on time by using both hands to move, though a further reason for it is to reduce the risk of cheating or pieces being knocked over. The player who uses both hands to "make" a move, then realises their error and reverses the move then replays it with one hand has not gained time - indeed they have lost time and the loss of time should be punishment enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by An overseas guy on chesschat
    This subject has been covered during the Arbiters' Commission Lecture on the new Laws of Chess. The Presidential Board intent is that any combination of any 2 infractions from the list will loose the game. The PB don't care that a player could loose the game without a warning, for example by castling with both hands and pressing when castling is illegal or by capturing en passant with both hands with a pinned pawn. The penalty is really for making a move with two hands. In my opinion, taking back your two handed move and replaying it could certainly be considered a disturbance of the opponent.

    Reminder: arbiters are not allowed to notify a player that the move that he has just made is illegal and that he should not press. An arbiter who witness the two handed castling should stop the game before the clock is pressed and give the 2 minutes penalty but cannot tell the player that the intended move is illegal.

    The wording is indeed poor and this has been admitted by the Lecturer. The intent of the Legislator is very clear and arbiters have been instructed to follow the intent, not the poor writing. The text has been sent back to the Rule Commission for improvement of the wording, but nobody knows when the improvements will be made and if we will have to wait 4 years for them to be applied.
    To add to MOZ's distractions list?
    Last edited by CarrierPigeon; 12-05-17 at 02:06 PM.
    My job is to carry relevant posts to Ozchess.

  14. | #59
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    4,884
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  15. | #60
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing at Hobsons Bay chess club where the tournaments are the best value in the state!
    Posts
    3,118

    Default

    The irony of losing a blitz chess game because of two handed piece capture is not lost on me. Hahahahahaha. The USA had a period where you were allowed to capture with two hands. In fact I don't even think it should be an issue in blitz. Picking up a piece with hand and moving a piece with the other hand prevents clumsiness and should be encouraged. It is very awkward to capture and move with the same hand. Certainly not a very natural feeling for the player. You are not changing hands to press the clock. I think in blitz it should be allowed to use two hands to capture a piece.
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Members who have read this thread since 04-06-18, 05:35 PM : 0

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)  (Clear Date)

There are no names to display.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •