Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Top players who don't even know the laws of chess (Read 28070 times)
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #52 - 04/13/15 at 15:59:05
Post Tools
So has admitted he was "using" notes during his game. The legalism that Straggler is arguing about doesn't exist here.

So's confusion, if there was any at all, was whether he could write notes on something other than the official score sheet. So has been told before by his coaches that he should not write notes. His claim that he didn't know it was illegal is not a legal excuse, and doesn't make sense.

The case itself is clear. The TD (in USCF, it's tournament director, not arbiter) had no choice but to forfeit So because he had already warned him and told him the penalty was a forfeit. The TD painted himself into a corner by threatening to forfeit So if he continued. In the future, I imagine TDs will be a bit more circumspect about similar cases.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1203
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #51 - 04/13/15 at 02:19:28
Post Tools
Maybe not as an explicit refusal to follow the rules--more like playing games with the rules, whereas in light of a warning of a forfeit the only thing to do is keep scrupulously clear of the whole matter.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 749
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #50 - 04/13/15 at 02:07:10
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 04/13/15 at 01:39:10:
I believe the arbiter just didn't think of a more graduated series of sanctions such as a warning that he would deduct time, and thought a warning of a forfeit would surely put an end to the whole thing. That was perhaps clumsy, but less harsh than deducting 10 minutes immediately--because So had the chance to get away with no sanction at all. One could hardly expect So to continue after such a warning! By doing so, it seems like he was pushing, needling, trying to find the boundary, playing cat-and-mouse partly to taunt or at least defy his opponents and virtually daring the arbiter to keep his word.

I agree with the first part of this, which is how I think the whole thing escalated. After reading far too much about various people's thoughts and actions, the sequence of events as best I can reconstruct them is:
  1. So is noticed writing on his scoresheet, gets a warning.
  2. So is noticed writing on his scoresheet again, and is told "Really, you can't do that. This is your second warning, you'll be forfeited if you do it again."
  3. So thinks he can satisfy the rule by writing on a piece of paper other than the scoresheet. (I actually believe he is being honest here.) But what the arbiter sees is that So is flouting the rule again, after being warned twice and explicitly threatened with forfeit. So he perceives it the way that ReneDescartes outlines above, as an explicit refusal to follow the rules.
Maybe a little more conversation could have cleared things up to the point that there could have been a time penalty and a really really stern final warning, but given the history of events, I don't blame the arbiter for seeing things the way that he did.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1203
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #49 - 04/13/15 at 01:39:10
Post Tools
Either it should be legal to write during the game, including variations, as it was for a time in the Soviet Union, or it should not be legal to use any notes at all. Otherwise various coded systems could easily be devised to record concrete chess content. Underlining, before the game begins, the move before the time control, recording divided time targets, etc. fall into a grey area. It's hard to see the harm. I think they should be permitted, but it matters little if they aren't.

The rule and its intent seem clear by mere common sense--to keep the game mental and to avoid distracting the players. Distinctions between writing and using notes would only lead to a siege of ambiguities.

I believe the arbiter just didn't think of a more graduated series of sanctions such as a warning of deducting time, and thought a warning of a forfeit would surely put an end to the whole thing. That was perhaps clumsy, but less harsh than deducting 10 minutes immediately--because So had the chance to get away with no sanction at all. One could hardly expect So to continue after such a warning! By continuing, it seems he was pushing, needling, trying to find the boundary, playing cat-and-mouse with the rules partly to taunt or at least defy his opponents and virtually daring the arbiter to keep his word. That itself is distracting, perhaps more so than the writing without that context. If he was angry about his personal life (and it seems he had plenty to be legitimately angry about), that only makes the interpretation more likely, though much sympathy is in order.

I don't blame the arbiter for his actions. They seemed reasonable, if slightly clumsy at one point. Once the arbiter had issued the ultimatum, he had to carry out the forfeit or he would become a negligible presence. And yes, carrying out the threat was in the best interest of the game of chess.
« Last Edit: 04/13/15 at 14:16:04 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3217
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #48 - 04/12/15 at 17:16:50
Post Tools
Straggler wrote on 04/12/15 at 13:44:56:
Stigma wrote on 04/12/15 at 11:34:19:
Firstly, the very act of writing something down makes it easier to remember. This would hold even if you never looked at it again, and even if you were blindfolded while writing it.

True, but it does not follow that you are using it simply by writing it. You are, if you like, using the act of writing it, but that's not the same thing.

I thought you would say that, and logically speaking you have a point. But in the case of notes, just by writing them you have already gotten quite a bit of effect out of them. So the distinction between "making" and "using" is arguably blurred in the specific case of notes. I also think an arbiter who allows a player to use the act of writing a note during a game is violating the spirit of the law, if not its precise letter. The "spirit" in this case being that the players should do all their thinking while at the board in their heads, without any external aides (except the board and pieces, clocks, and scoresheets).

Straggler wrote on 04/12/15 at 13:44:56:
Quote:
You're probably even looking at the first half of a note already when you're writing the second half!

Perhaps, but that hardly constitutes using the note.

Yes, it does. It seems you're ignoring the fact that "a note" is not a bounded entity that is either completed or useless, with no in-betweens. Where does one note end and the next begin?

If I write, to take a not-very-random example, "Double check and triple check", there is no reasonable doubt that I am thinking of (and thus in a very relevant sense using) the first half when writing the second half. If I write "Use your time you have a lot of it", I am thinking of the first part-sentence I just wrote (and thus using my note even before I have finished it) when I'm writing the second part-sentence, which doesn't make much sense on its own. In both cases, the first half is useful even if read in isolation.

There may be some conceivable examples of someone making a note but not using it, but the So case clearly is not.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #47 - 04/12/15 at 15:29:33
Post Tools
The wording in the rule is "use" from what I've seen which leads to a small issue of interpretation whether the rule was broken or not. But yes, I agree Lee Roth.

Anyway, back to the hypothetical case, lol:
Because I am not speaking English natively, my interpretation of the rules might differ slightly. However, as it is written I read "use" not "using" which also to me would actually involve "making" a note due to reasons already mebtioned. You cold 'use' the "making" of a note to improve your play (Which I think was the case here no matter if So actually looked at the note after making it). How much it actually help is kinda irrelevant imo.

Think about the problem in sports with allowing substances and procedures that could conceal doping. Even if an athlete hasn't used an illegal performance enhancing substance but just one of those substances to conceal doping, how can it be proven that the athlete hasn't been doping? The same goes for a note on a paper. How can the arbiter know it was only 'made' and not 'used'?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1520
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #46 - 04/12/15 at 15:16:20
Post Tools
Guys, there is no reason to get into a technical debate over whether there's a difference between making a note and using a note.  In this case, with GM So, there is no practical difference.  He was writing little reminders to himself so he could look at them during the game.  I mean, c'mon, why write them down if you're not going to use them?   Roll Eyes

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uhohspaghettio
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 510
Joined: 02/23/11
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #45 - 04/12/15 at 14:13:44
Post Tools
Straggler wrote on 04/12/15 at 08:56:19:
But it isn't clear that what he did was against the rules. The fact that he had been warned for doing it is irrelevant if, properly construed, the rules do not prohibit it.


Irrelevant? If the rules aren't clear then the arbiter must interpret them as he sees fit. If he believes the player did not understand them he must warn the player that what he's doing is against his interpretation of the rules. That's the main point of warnings.
 
Your extremely hypothetical case of notetaking without using the note was also proven false by the fact that a person could be said to have been using the note by reading the first part of the note. You then say that reading the first part of the note could "Perhaps, but that hardly constitutes using the note.", which is a ridiculous statement, and actually there isn't any room for other opinions. You created this extreme case, and then you want to handwave away a part of it that doesn't appeal to your practical sense. I suppose I'll be accused of trying to start an argument now or something because I don't think there's room for other opinions on this and everyone can be "right", actually I'm only trying to make the statements made here be reasonable and make sense.
  

"I don't recall saying good luck."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Straggler
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 373
Joined: 08/09/09
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #44 - 04/12/15 at 13:44:56
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 04/12/15 at 11:34:19:
Firstly, the very act of writing something down makes it easier to remember. This would hold even if you never looked at it again, and even if you were blindfolded while writing it.

True, but it does not follow that you are using it simply by writing it. You are, if you like, using the act of writing it, but that's not the same thing.

Quote:
Secondly, as fling points out, how could the arbiter make sure that a player is not reading the note again later?

I've answered that. It is not illegal to do something merely because, if a player does it, arbiters may find it hard to detect whether the player has also done something else which is illegal. It is only illegal if the rules say so.

Quote:
You're probably even looking at the first half of a note already when you're writing the second half!

Perhaps, but that hardly constitutes using the note.

There's room for different opinions about this, clearly. But what I would say with some confidence is that no competent drafter would refer to "using" a thing with the intention that that should include making it. I could cite examples in legislation where both words are used because the intention is to cover both actions -- which would be unnecessary if "use" covered both. And nowadays drafters don't use two words where one will do.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #43 - 04/12/15 at 11:37:20
Post Tools
Precisely as Stigma says is how I view it. You are using the process of making the note to e.g. remember something. That would mean you can use it when you make it. Imagine writing something like "after the bishop moves, remember to sacrifice the rook". That would help you while making the note even if you flip the paper over immediately after finishing it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3217
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #42 - 04/12/15 at 11:34:19
Post Tools
Straggler wrote on 04/12/15 at 10:55:25:
Sorry, I don't understand how it could be argued that a person making a note is thereby using it. He is using the paper he makes it on, and the pen that he makes it with; but he cannot use the note until it exists, and it does not exist until he has made it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand how it could be argued that a person making a note is thereby not using it.

Firstly, the very act of writing something down makes it easier to remember. This would hold even if you never looked at it again, and even if you were blindfolded while writing it.

Secondly, as fling points out, how could the arbiter make sure that a player is not reading the note again later? You're probably even looking at the first half of a note already when you're writing the second half!

This concept you're introducing of "writing a note but not using it" sounds purely hypothetical and has nothing to do with either human cognition as we know it or the FIDE laws of chess.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Straggler
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 373
Joined: 08/09/09
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #41 - 04/12/15 at 10:55:25
Post Tools
fling wrote on 04/12/15 at 09:13:27:
No, I agree that it is not totally clear. But what I meant is how can you say a person is only making and not using the notes? As soon as you start making the notes, you are using the notes in a way. Even in the hypothetical case of writing the notes and then flipping the paper over immediately.

Sorry, I don't understand how it could be argued that a person making a note is thereby using it. He is using the paper he makes it on, and the pen that he makes it with; but he cannot use the note until it exists, and it does not exist until he has made it.

Quote:
And how is an arbiter supposed to know if the player hasn't looked at the notes after that unless the arbiter was there the whole time? How could you rule differently in this case?

How is an arbiter supposed to know whether a player has looked at notes that he made before the game? There is no rule against having such notes in one's possession. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #40 - 04/12/15 at 09:13:27
Post Tools
No, I agree that it is not totally clear. But what I meant is how can you say a person is only making and not using the notes? As soon as you start making the notes, you are using the notes in a way. Even in the hypothetical case of writing the notes and then flipping the paper over immediately. And how is an arbiter supposed to know if the player hasn't looked at the notes after that unless the arbiter was thereally the whole time? How could you rule differently in this case?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Straggler
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 373
Joined: 08/09/09
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #39 - 04/12/15 at 08:56:19
Post Tools
But it isn't clear that what he did was against the rules. The fact that he had been warned for doing it is irrelevant if, properly construed, the rules do not prohibit it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1591
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Top players who don't even know the laws of chess
Reply #38 - 04/12/15 at 08:47:03
Post Tools
I do think So's situation with regards to his family life seem pretty terrible, bit that is unfortunately something that explains his behaviour not really something that changes the rules of chess.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo