Kasparov wrote:I don't want to judge the decisions made by Tony Rich becauser I understand they followed the rules. But the very fact that a bunch of idiots in FIDE created such rules tells you everything about that organisation.
So he is not disputing the rule.
I thought that, for instance, I could have been disqualified in every game, because I used to take notes of my time for each move.
If he took a minute to read the rule, he would know that that is still allowed.
[Note that Kasparov's comments regarding being disqualified for writing down clock times are completely wrong. The relevant rule, Article 12.4, which he appears not to have read, specifically allows the recording of the clock times - Steve Giddins, English translator].
If Kasparov did not know the exact rule, I should not be surprised if a large percentage of chess players do not know it.
Now, ignorance is no excuse of the law, but I guess that this sort of thing is rather an edge case or we would hear of it a lot more often.
If writing down the time is OK, how will the opponent know if he is writing down time notes or is writing whatever it was that So wrote?
All in all, though, considering that So has been warned multiple times about it, I think that it is not surprising that there was some sort of censure.
8.1b The scoresheet shall be used only for recording the moves, the times of the clocks, offers of a draw, matters relating to a claim and other relevant data.
11.3 During play the players are forbidden to use any notes, sources of information or advice, or analyse any game on another chessboard. (...) The rules of a competition may specify a different, less severe, penalty.
Surely, the intent of this rule is to prevent players from bringing in outside information (e.g. prepared notes about an opening or position) rather than some note a person might jot down while playing. It makes no sense to me otherwise, since it imparts no advantage.
11.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
This is so vague that it ought to be unenforceable. Otherwise, I could claim that my opponent's haircut is distracting me so he/she should be given the forfeit.
11.7 Persistent refusal by a player to comply with the Laws of Chess shall be penalised by loss of the game.
PS: I find it hard to believe he did not know it was against the rules, but hey I guess anything is possible?!
My opinion:
So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.
Surely, the intent of this rule is to prevent players from bringing in outside information (e.g. prepared notes about an opening or position) rather than some note a person might jot down while playing. It makes no sense to me otherwise, since it imparts no advantage.
When I've played correspondence chess, I found the writing of notes to be very useful. For example, I can note how many candidate moves I found at the root position so that I don't forget them once I start looking at each candidate move in depth. If I spot a subtle threat by my opponent, I note it down so that I can remember to make sure my final chosen move deals with it. Etc.
What if I'm struggling to visualise a long line of moves? Surely noting where the pieces are half way along the line would be helpful? Can I draw a diagram?
If some notes are allowed, it becomes impossible for every arbiter to consistently and fairly apply what is allowed or not. It opens a can of worms for all kinds of problems.
Surely, the intent of this rule is to prevent players from bringing in outside information (e.g. prepared notes about an opening or position) rather than some note a person might jot down while playing. It makes no sense to me otherwise, since it imparts no advantage.
When I've played correspondence chess, I found the writing of notes to be very useful. For example, I can note how many candidate moves I found at the root position so that I don't forget them once I start looking at each candidate move in depth. If I spot a subtle threat by my opponent, I note it down so that I can remember to make sure my final chosen move deals with it. Etc.
What if I'm struggling to visualise a long line of moves? Surely noting where the pieces are half way along the line would be helpful? Can I draw a diagram?
If some notes are allowed, it becomes impossible for every arbiter to consistently and fairly apply what is allowed or not. It opens a can of worms for all kinds of problems.
Quite so.
I see no reason why anything written down during game play that does not rely upon outside sources should be frowned upon.
Why will it bother me if you draw board diagrams? I suppose that if you had an extra scratchy pen, I might ask for some earplugs.
Of course, I have never personally played a Fide tournament game, so anything I say is of little practical value. It is just what occurs to me as how I think things ought to be, which can be light years from reality.
Dann Corbit wrote:
My opinion:
So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.
Within the rules no doubt. But smelly {IMO-YMMV}.
Of course, I can be completely wrong about that.
My opinion,
All blame belongs to Wesley So, he had been told this many times, I don't feel sorry for people who don't listen to good advice. He did not, now he has paid the price ($45,000USD if he had won). That's a pretty high price tag to pay for something others had tried to teach him for free.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
Dann Corbit wrote:
My opinion:
So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.
Within the rules no doubt. But smelly {IMO-YMMV}.
Of course, I can be completely wrong about that.
My opinion,
All blame belongs to Wesley So, he had been told this many times, I don't feel sorry for people who don't listen to good advice. He did not, now he has paid the price ($45,000USD if he had won). That's a pretty high price tag to pay for something others had tried to teach him for free.
Would you have asked the arbitrator to disqualify your opponent if he wrote down some notes while playing against you?
P.S.
I agree that Mr. So probably broke the rules.
The fact that I think the rule is imbecilic is also irrelevant.
I also understand that Mr. So has been warned before (by a teacher if I recall correctly, and not by Fide).
All that having been said, I can still think that a correct ruling is stupid.
Dann Corbit wrote:If Kasparov did not know the exact rule, I should not be surprised if a large percentage of chess players do not know it.
Now, ignorance is no excuse of the law, but I guess that this sort of thing is rather an edge case or we would hear of it a lot more often.
Few players ignore two warnings plus the message that they'll be forfeited for the third infraction.
This is so vague that it ought to be unenforceable.
Without it there are a million ways to annoy your opponent without breaking a rule. Note that it is unusual to be forfeited immediately.
So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.
Maybe. Or maybe he decided to help So. Better lose a game in a tournament that isn't going too well anyway than in one that he is about to win. There can be little doubt that this would happen some day.
Dann Corbit wrote:
My opinion:
So's opponent knew he had a tendency to jot down notes (has been warned for it before), and so he simply waited for it, to collect an easy point.
Within the rules no doubt. But smelly {IMO-YMMV}.
Of course, I can be completely wrong about that.
My opinion,
All blame belongs to Wesley So, he had been told this many times, I don't feel sorry for people who don't listen to good advice. He did not, now he has paid the price ($45,000USD if he had won). That's a pretty high price tag to pay for something others had tried to teach him for free.
Would you have asked the arbitrator to disqualify your opponent if he wrote down some notes while playing against you?
P.S.
I agree that Mr. So probably broke the rules.
The fact that I think the rule is imbecilic is also irrelevant.
I also understand that Mr. So has been warned before (by a teacher if I recall correctly, and not by Fide).
All that having been said, I can still think that a correct ruling is stupid.
No, I would not have asked the arbitrator to disqualify my opponent. I don't think this is what happened in this case either or am I wrong on this point?
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
gordonr wrote:... For example, I can note how many candidate moves I found at the root position so that I don't forget them once I start looking at each candidate move in depth. If I spot a subtle threat by my opponent, I note it down so that I can remember to make sure my final chosen move deals with it. Etc.
What if I'm struggling to visualise a long line of moves? Surely noting where the pieces are half way along the line would be helpful? Can I draw a diagram?
If some notes are allowed, it becomes impossible for every arbiter to consistently and fairly apply what is allowed or not. It opens a can of worms for all kinds of problems.
I have been playing tournament chess for 35 years, not at top level, obviously. Never, really never has anything like what you describe happened. And i don't remember any reported case, either, although if we look hard enough we will probably find someone who has done it, almost certainly a beginner or weak player.
That's not a can of worms you open, there, it's a non-existing problem.
(That's why I think it is not such a bad idea to have a certain experience in what one is talking about).
